1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM C.M.A(MD)No.777 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.3 of 2011 United India Insurance Co.Ltd through its Branch Manager Srikumar Building, Post Box No.1, Saalakudi South Junction, Kerala State .. Appellant/3rd Respondent Vs. 1.Rukmani 2.Rajkumar 3.Ponmani 4.Kanagaraj 5.Kalidhas .. Respondents 1 to 5 /Petitioners 6.Suresh .. Respondent No.6 /1st respondent 7.P.K.Jaleel (RR-6 & 7 notice dispensed with) .. Respondent No.7 /2nd respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 17.02.2010 passed in MACOP No.57 of 2007 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Additional Sub Court, Tenkasi. For Appellant : Mr.S.Ramachandran For RR – 1 to 5 : No appearance For 6 & 7 : NDW JUDGMENT The award dated 17.02.2010 passed in MACOP No.57 of 2007 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional Sub Court, Tenkasi is being challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The respondents 1 to 5 herein as petitioners have filed MCOP No.57 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award of Rs.50,00,000/- by way of compensation wherein the present appellant and respondents 6 and 7 have been shown as respondents. 3. It is stated in the petition that the first petitioner is the wife of the deceased by name Madhanadurai. The petitioners 2 to 5 are their children. The deceased has owned a lorry bearing Registration No.TAD-4002 and thereby earned Rs.30,000/- per mensem. He has also run a finance company and thereby earned Rs.25,000/- per mensem. He has run brick and gravel business and thereby earned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Rs.30,000/- per mensem. He has also let out his house and also done agricultural operations. On 04.02.2007 at about 8.00 pm the deceased has travelled on his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-72-U-1312 and at that time the driver of the lorry belongs to the second respondent bearing Registration No.KL-08-V-2054 has been driven in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Due to accident, he sustained multiple injuries and subsequently he has been admitted in hospital. On 12.02.2007 he succumbed to injuries. The lorry which caused accident has been insured with the third respondent. Under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed for getting compensation as mentioned therein. 4. In the counter filed on the side of the contesting respondent it has been stated that the petitioners have exaggerated monthly income of the deceased and also claimed excessive compensation and there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the available evidence on record the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.14,22,818/- by way of compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the third respondent as appellant. 6. Even though the respondents have been served with summonses, appearance has not been made. Under the said circumstances the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of on merits on the basis of the contention put forth on the side of the appellant/third respondent. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/third respondent has attacked the award passed in MCOP No.57 of 2007 on the following grounds: (a) Even though on the side of the petitioners so many documents have been filed so as to prove the nature of business run by the deceased, no relevant document has been filed with regard to his monthly income. (b) The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal without looking into the documents filed on the side of the petitioners has erroneously fixed yearly income of the deceased at Rs.90,000/- and the method adopted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is incorrect. 8. In the petition it has been stated in many places that the deceased has run so many business including agriculture. As rightly pointed out on the side of the appellant/third respondent so many documents have been filed on the side of the petitioners so as to prove that the deceased has run some business, no relevant document has been filed for the purpose of showing either his monthly or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 yearly income. But the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal without any basis has simply fixed yearly income of the deceased at Rs.90,000/-. Since monthly or yearly income of the deceased is very much essential for fixing compensation in a case like this, the approach made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is totally erroneous. Under the said circumstances the petitioners are bound to file necessary documents for the purpose of proving either monthly or yearly income of the deceased, since the deceased has run several business as stated on their side. 9. It has already been pointed out that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal without any basis has simply fixed Rs.90,000/- as yearly income of the deceased and only on that basis it has fixed Rs.14,22,818/- by way of compensation. Since yearly income fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is not on the basis of any documentary evidence, the entire award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remitted to the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 10. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed without cost and the award dated 17.02.2010 passed in MACOP No.57 of 2007 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional Sub Court, Tenkasi is set aside and MCOP No.57 of 2007 is remitted to the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional Sub Court, Tenkasi. The respondents 1 to 5/petitioners are strictly directed to file relevant document for the purpose of proving either monthly or yearly income of the deceased and the the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional Sub Court, Tenkasi is directed to dispose of MCOP No.57 of 2007 before the end of December 2011 and report the same to the Registry without fail. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi C.M.A(MD)No.777 of 2011 12.09.2011 mj SMA/11.10.2011/2C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/