1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM C.M.A(MD)No.852 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 The Managing Director Tamilnadu State Transport Co. Ltd. Pudukottai District. .. Appellant/Respondent Vs. 1.K.Chelliah 2.Meenakshi 3.Kalaiyarasi 4.Anjugam 5.Abirami .. Respondent/Petitioners Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 29.09.2010 passed in MCOP No.582 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal /Principal District Court, Pudukottai. For Appellant : Mr.N.Asaithambi For RR – 1,2,4 & 5 : Mr.N.Balakrishnan For R – 3 : No appearance JUDGMENT The award passed in MCOP No.582 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal District Court, Pudukottai is being challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The respondents 1 to 5 as petitioners have filed MCOP No.582 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award for the amount mentioned therein, wherein the present appellant has been shown as respondent. 3. It is stated in the petition that the petitioners 1 and 2 Petitioners are the parents of the deceased and the remaining petitioners are their children. The deceased by name Minor along with his father has pushed TVS XL Super on 14.09.2006 at about 8.30 pm near S.V.S.petrol bunk, Pudukottai. At that time the driver of the respondent has driven the bus bearing Registration No.TN-55-N-0290 in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and thereby caused accident. Due to accident, he sustained fatal injuries and subsequently passed away. Under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed for getting compensation. 4. In the counter filed on the side of the respondent it is averred that the accident has not happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent and the entire accident has happened only due to negligence on the part of the deceased and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get compensation and altogether the present petition 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.3,15,000/- 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 respondent as appellant. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent has contended that the deceased has attained only 15 years of age and no notional monthly income has been fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and in flat rate, it has fixed at Rs.3,15,000/- by way of compensation and therefore, quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/petitioners has contended that as per the decision rendered by the Honourable Apex Court, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has fixed the award in question and therefore, the award in question is not liable to be set aside. 8. In fact, this Court has perused the entire method adopted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has followed the recent decision rendered by the Honourable Apex Court. The Honourable Apex Court in a case like this has fixed Rs.1,60,000/- apart from other compensations claimed under various heads and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal apart from Rs.1,60,000/- has given Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Rs.75,000/- towards non-pecuniary loss and Rs.75,000/- towards loss of future prospects and in aggregation it has fixed Rs.3,15,000/- by way of compensation. Since the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has followed the recent decision given by the Honourable Apex Court, this Court is of the view that the method adopted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is perfectly correct and the same does not require any interference and altogether the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without cost and the award passed in MCOP No.582 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal /Principal District Court, Pudukottai is confirmed. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ Principal District Judge, Pudukottai. +1 CC to Mr.N.Asaithambi, Advocate (SR.No.31733) mj C.M.A(MD)No.852 of 2011 NSV/4.10.11/2P/3C 14.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/