IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.03.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.938 OF 2009 & M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 Chief Advisor Water and Sanitation Project, No.6, S.S.Dhandapani Nagar, Cuddalore  607 001. Now re-designated as The Project Officer, DRDA Complex, Beach Road, Cuddalore. ... Appellant Versus 1.R.Nagooran 2.Y.Yuvarani 3.N.Gowri ... Respondents Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set-aside the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2007, made in M.C.O.P.No.1239 of 2005, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IVth Small Causes Court, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.R.Muthaiyan, Government Advocate For Additional Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj - - - J U D G M E N T The above appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award and decree dated 04.12.2007, made in M.C.O.P.No.1239 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IVth Small Causes Court, Chennai. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows: On 07.02.2005 at about 10.00 a.m., the deceased was sitting at the corner of the E.C.R. Road, and at that point of time the respondent Car bearing Registration No.TN-31 D(G) 1413 came from Pondicherry towards Chennai in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result he succumbed to his injuries. Hence, the legal-heirs of the deceased had filed the claim petition against the respondents for compensation a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest. 3.The second respondent had filed a counter statement and refuted the claim petition. The age, income and occupation of the deceased are denied. Actually, the deceased had suddenly crossed the Road in a reckless manner and invited the accident besides the claim amount is excessive. 4.On the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed four issues for consideration, namely; (i)Whether the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bolero Car bearing Reg.No.TN-31-D(G) 1413? (ii)Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation? (iii)Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? (iv)To what relief? 5.On the side of the claimants two witnesses had been examined namely, PW1-Yuvaraj and PW2- Kandeepan and four documents were marked, namely, Ex.P1-First Information Report, Ex.P2- Postmortem Certificate, Ex.P3-legal-heir certificate, Ex.P4-Identity Card. PW2 had adduced evidence stating that the driver of the Car had committed the said accident. PW1 had adduced evidence that the first claimant is the father and second and third claimants are unmarried sisters respectively. Before the accident, he was engaged as a labourer in the building construction work and was earning a sum of Rs.150/- per day. 6.On considering the evidences of the witnesses, oral and documentary, the Tribunal had granted a compensation a sum of Rs.3,61,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The breakup of compensation is as follows:- Rs.3,30,000/- towards loss of dependency; Rs.5,000/- against funeral expenses; Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection; Rs.5,000/- for transport; Rs.6,000/- towards mental agony; 7.Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has filed the above appeal. 8.The learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the absence of earning proof of the deceased, the compensation had been assessed erroneously. Actually, the deceased had invited the said accident by suddenly crossing the road in a reckless manner. 9.Learned counsel for the claimants argued that the age of the deceased was 18 years and he was an earning youth in the construction field as a labourer. On the basis of age and income of the deceased and dependency, the award had been passed. 10.On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments submitted by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the deceased was 18 years old and earning as a youthful labourer, so considering this aspect, the Tribunal had assessed the compensation in a prudent way. Therefore, this Court is not warranted to interfere with the impugned decision of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, hence, it is confirmed as fair and and justifiable. 11.It is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount with accrued interest thereon as fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1239 of 2005 on the file of IVth Small Causes Court, Chennai, after filing a Memo along with this order. 12.Resultantly, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the file of IVth Small Causes Court, Chennai, made in M.C.O.P.No.1239 of 2005, dated 04.12.2007 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. r n s To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IVth Small Causes Court, Chennai