IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 12.04.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1055 OF 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai – 8. ...Appellant/ Respondent Versus 1.S.Meena 2.Manikandan (Minor rep. by his mother and next friend S.Meena) 3.S.Ashok 4.S.Venkat 5.Kathammal ...Respondents Prayer: This appeal is preferred against the Order and decreetal order dated 28.10.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.784 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (3rd Small Causes Court), Chennai. For Appellant : M/s.P.Shanthi Rakkappan (Government Advocate) For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.Senthilswamy J U D G M E N T The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai against the Order and decreetal order dated 28.10.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.784 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (3rd Small Causes Court), Chennai. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows: On 5.12.2000, when the (deceased) Subramani was proceeding on a bicycle on the Halls Road, Egmore, Chennai, the respondent's vehicle bearing registration No.TSL 1251, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the cyclist https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from behind. In the result, he had succumbed to his injuries. Hence, the Legal heirs have filed the claim petition against the respondents for compensation of a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest. 3.The respondent had filed a counter statement and refuted the claim petition. The respondent denied the averments that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent manner of driving by the driver of the respondents vehicle. The age, income and occupation of the deceased were denied. The claim amount is an excessive one. 4. On the scrutiny of the claim petition and on the scrutiny of the counter statement of respondent, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration, namely; “(i)Was the accident committed by the driver of the Jeep bearing registration NO.TSL 1251 because of his rash and negligent driving? (ii)Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?” 5.On the side of the claimants, two witnesses had been examined viz., PW1/3rd Claimant and PW2, eye-witness, and seven documents were marked on the side of the claimants namely, 1.Ex.P1 is the Postmorem report; 2.Ex.P2 is the Death certificate; 3.EX.P3 is the case particulars; 4.Ex.P4 is the legal heir certificate; 5.Ex.P5 is the Salary certificate; 6.Ex.P6 is the First Information Report and; 7.Ex.P7 is the Rough sketch. On the side of the respondents, one Dilli Babu, Head Constable was examined as RW1, who had marked Judgment copy of criminal court as Ex.R1. PW1 had adduced evidence stating that on 5.12.2000, at around 10.00 a.m., his father Subramani was proceeding from Egmore to his residence on the Halls Road and at that time, the respondent's Jeep bearing registration No.TSL 1255, driven by its driver in a reckless manner, in the same direction hit against the cyclist. As a result, he had succumbed to his injuries. PW1, further adduced evidence that his father was working as Watchman at Santhosh Housing Society and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. PW2, had adduced evidence on the same lines as the evidence of PW1 regarding manner of accident. 6.RW1, had adduced evidence stating that he was attached to the Traffic Investigation Wing, Egmore. On 5.12.2000, the driver https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the Jeep was proceeding on the Halls Road from south to north and at that time a fish cart came on the right side of the Jeep. To avoid collision with the fish cart, the driver of the Jeep turned the jeep towards the left and in the result, the jeep slightly hit the cyclist. RW1 further adduced evidence that the driver of the jeep had been acquitted from the criminal proceedings. 7.On considering the evidence of both the parties and documentary evidence of both sides, the Tribunal had come to a conclusion on the two issues namely negligence and quantum in favour of the claimants and awarded Rs.5,30,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal had fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.2,950/- per month, and the age of the deceased as 53 years. The income was fixed on the basis of Salary certificate, which was marked by PW1 as Exhibit P5. The learned Tribunal had assessed the compensation as follows:- Rs.2,64,000/- towards loss of income; (2,950-950)X12X11=2,64,000/-) Rs.10,000/- towards Loss of consortium; Rs.20,000/- towards Loss of Love and affection; Rs.5,000/- towards Loss of estate and; Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. In total, a sum of Rs.3,04,000/- had been awarded together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 8.Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has filed the above appeal and challenged the impugned award of the Tribunal. The learned Government Pleader argued that the respondent's vehicle was not the offending vehicle since the driver was acquitted from the criminal proceedings. As such, the respondent is not liable to pay compensation but the learned Tribunal had erroneously fastened the liability on the respondent. There were no relevant documents in order to prove the age and income of the deceased. The third, fourth and fifth claimants are all majors and they were not depending upon the income of the deceased. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the head of Loss of estate which is not pertinent in this case. 9.The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claimants are 5 in numbers, the second claimant is a minor and the other claimants are brothers and mother of deceased. All were depending upon the income of the deceased, who was the earning member of the family. The deceased age was 47 years, but the learned Tribunal had considered the age of the deceased as 53 years and assessed the compensation. The learned counsel further argued that the Tribunal had not awarded an adequate compensation under the heads of love and affection, funeral expenses and loss of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ income. As per counter statement, the respondent had categorically admitted that the driver of the jeep turned to his left side and hit the cyclist, for avoiding collision against the fish cart, which came in the opposite direction at the time of accident. 10.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal passed in M.C.O.P.No.784 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (3rd Small Causes Court), Chennai, dated 28.10.2005, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal's impugned order had been decided on the basis of evidence of both the parties and documentary evidence including rough sketch, and compensation had been assessed on the basis of salary certificate and postmortem certificate which reflects the income and age of the deceased. Therefore, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the said award. Hence, this Court confirms the impugned order of the learned Tribunal, which is found to be fair and justifiable. Hence, the court directs the appellant to comply with the impugned award of the tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After such compliance has been made by the appellant by way of depositing the compensation amount, it is open to the claimants to withdraw the entire compensation amount, as per Tribunal order, lying in the credit of MCOP No.784 of 2003, on the file of Small Causes Court No.III, after filing a memo along with this order. If the second claimant has not become a major, the first claimant is permitted to withdraw the second claimant's share amount with accrued interest thereon, on behalf of the second claimant. Accordingly ordered. 11. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the order and decreetal order, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (3rd Small Causes Court), Chennai, made in MCOP No.784 of 2003, dated 28.10.2005 is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There is no order as to costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. vs https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Small Causes Court, Chennai. Copy to The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras 1 cc to M/s. Senthilswamy, Associates, Advocate, Sr. 26192 1 cc to spl. Government Pleader, Sr. 26742 C.M.A.NO.1055 OF 2011 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2011 RJ (CO) KK 27/6 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/