Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Kamalam on 5 October, 2018
Author: V.M. Velumani
Bench: V.M. Velumani
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.10.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M. VELUMANI
CMA(MD).Nos.1473 and 1474 of 2011 and
M.P(MD).Nos.1 of 2011 in both CMAs
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
through its District Collector,
Madurai near Anna Bus Stand,
Madurrai Town,
Madurai District.
2.Tamil Nadu Police Department,
through its Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City, South Avani Moola Veethi,
Madurai Town, Madurai District. .. Appellants
in both appeals.
Vs.
1.Kamalam
2.Senthamaraikannan
3.Vijiraj
4.Radhakrishnan
5.J.Sumathi
6. National Insurance Company Limited,
through its Branch Manager,
Madurai Branch NO.I, Madurai. Respondents in CMA.1473/11
1.Pandimadevi
2.Pandi Prabhakaran
3.Sathiyaseelan
4.J.Sumathi
5. National Insurance Company Limited,
through its Branch Manager,
Madurai Branch NO.I, Madurai. Respondents in CMA.1474/11
Common Prayer: These
http://www.judis.nic.in
Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under
2
Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 amended by Motor Vehicles
(Amendment Act), 1994, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated
03.02.2007 made in MCOP.Nos. 341 and 342 of 2004, on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Court, Sivagangai.
For Appellants : Mr. P. Kannithevan, AGP
For R1 to R3 : Mr.T. Ramanathan
in CMA.(MD).No.1473 of 2011 and
For R1 to R3 : Mr. R. Karthikeyan
in CMA(MD).No.1474 of 2011
For R5 : Mr. D. Sivaraman
in CMA(MD).No.1474 of 2011
for R6 in CMA.(MD).No.1473 of 2011 and
______
COMMON JUDGMENT
These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 03.02.2007, made in MCOP.No. 342 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Court, Sivagangai.
2. Since both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are arising out of the same accident, they are heard together and disposed of by way of this common Judgment.
3. The appellants in both the appeals are one and the same. The respondents 1 to 4 in C.M.A.(MD).No.1473 of 2011 are the http://www.judis.nic.in 3 claimants. The respondents 1 to 3 in CMA(MD).No.1474 of 2011 are the claimants. The respondents 1 to 4 in C.M.A.(MD).No.1473 of 2011 filed a claim petition in MCOP.No.341 of 2004, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the husband of the first respondent and father of the respondents 2 to 4. The respondents 1 to 3 in C.M.A. (MD).No.1474 of 2011 filed a claim petition in MCOP.No.342 of 2004, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of the husband of the first respondent and father of the respondents 2 and 3. (Hereinafter, respondents in both the CMAs are referred to as claimants).
4. According to the claimants, while the deceased viz., Subburam and Ravichandran relating to MCOP.Nos. 341 of 2004 and 342 of 2004, respectively, who were officiating as Sub-Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police in Madurai, Theppakulam Police Station, were travelling in a Jeep bearing Regn. No.TN 59 G 0609 after arresting the accused from Rameswaram to Madurai, when the Jeep was nearing Somanathapuram on 28.04.2004 at 5.15 hours, the driver of the Jeep drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the back side of the Lorry bearing Regn.No.TCL 7479, which was parked on the left side of the road, as a result of which, both of them died on the spot due to the injuries sustained by them. According to the claimants, they are dependants of the deceased Subbaram and http://www.judis.nic.in 4 Ravichandran. The deceased were working as officials of the police Department getting a salary of Rs.12,500/- and Rs.15,000/- per month respectively. The respondents 1 to 4 in C.M.A.(MD).No.1473 of 2011 filed a claim petition in MCOP.No.341 of 2004, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death Subburam and the respondents 1 to 3 in C.M.A.(MD).No.1474 of 2011 filed a claim petition in MCOP.No.342 of 2004, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of Ravichandran.
5. Before the Tribunal, the appellants filed counter statement in both MCOPs and denied the way, in which, the accident took place as alleged by the claimants. According to the appellants, the driver of the Jeep drove the vehicle in a very slow speed with care and observing the traffic rules carefully. They have further contended that the accident occurred only due to the negligent act of the driver of the Lorry. The claimants ought to have proved that the driver of the lorry had valid driving licence and prayed for dismissal of the MCOPs.
6. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and First Information Report - Ex.P1, Copy of the final report Ex.P2, held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent acts of the driver of the Jeep belonging to the appellants and the driver of the Lorry belonging to J. Sumathi, awarded a sum of http://www.judis.nic.in 5 Rs.5,88,660/- and Rs.11,50,106/- respectively as compensation to the claimants in the respective MCOPs directing the appellants to pay 50% of the compensation jointly and severally and directing the owner of the Lorry and its insurer to pay 50% of the compensation jointly and severally.
7. Against the said Award, the appellants have come out with the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants reiterated the averments made in the counter statement and grounds of appeals and contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence let in by the parties and had erroneously held that the driver of the Jeep is responsible for the accident. He further contended that the compensation amount awarded in both the cases are exorbitant and prayed for setting aside the Award passed by the Tribunal.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents / claimants contended that the respondents / claimants have proved that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep and the Tribunal has considered all the materials on record and awarded compensation, which is just and proper. http://www.judis.nic.in 6
10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
11. According to the appellants, the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the Lorry belonging to the 5 th respondent in CMA(MD).No. 1473 of 2011 / 4th respondent in CMA(MD).No.1474 of 2011. The Tribunal considering the manner of accident and the First Information Report lodged against the driver of the Jeep and the evidence let in by the parties, held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep. From the materials on record it is seen that, the appellants have not examined any witnesses to show that the driver of the Jeep is not responsible for accident. Considering the above, this Court is of the view that there is no error in the Award passed by the Tribunal.
12. As far as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal considering the nature of work, age and dependants of the deceased, awarded a sum of Rs.5,88,660/- and Rs.11,50,106/- respectively as compensation to the claimants in the respective MCOPs. The said compensation is just and proper.
13. In the result, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed by confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 03.02.2007 http://www.judis.nic.in 7 made in MCOP.Nos. 341 and 342 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Court, Sivagangai. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
14. The appellants and the owner of the Lorry and its insurer are directed to deposit the amount awarded by the Tribunal to the Credit of MCOP.Nos. 341 and 342 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Court, Sivagangai, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, after deducting the amount already deposited if any. On such deposit being made, the claimants are entitled to withdraw their shares by filing necessary application before the Tribunal.
05.10.2018 trp Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No http://www.judis.nic.in 8 V.M. VELUMANI, J., trp To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Court, Sivagangai.
2. The Record Keeper, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
CMA(MD).Nos.1473 and 1474 of 2011 and M.P(MD).Nos.1 of 2011 in both CMAs 05.10.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in