Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2293 (MAD)

Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police v. Suseela

2011-04-21

C.S.KARNAN

body2011
Judgment :- 1. The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / The Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police, III Battalion, Veerapuram, Chennai–55, against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.07.2009, made in M.C.O.P.No.1537 of 2001, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.1, Chennai. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 10.04.2000, at around 21.30 hours, when the deceased was proceeding on his bicycle on the Coonoor High Road, Ayanavaram, at that point of time, the Respondent's vehicle bearing registration No.TN-20-G-1017, driven by its driver, from the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the cyclist. In the result, he had succumbed to his injuries. Hence the legal heirs of the deceased, have filed a claim against the respondents for compensation of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest. 3. The respondent had filed a counter statement and had resisted the claim petition. The respondents stated that actually the cyclist drove the cycle at a high speed and suddenly crossed the road, and dashed against the respondent's vehicle. As such, the accident had occurred. The age, income and occupation of the deceased were also denied. 4. On the averments of both parties, the tribunal, had framed two issues for considerat ion, namely; “(i)Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent act on the part of driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-20-G-1017? (ii)Whether the petitioners/legal heir of the deceased is entitled to claim compensation, if so, what is the amount of compensation payable to the claimants?” 5. PW1 had adduced evidence stating that on 10.04.2000, at about 21.35 hours, the deceased was proceeding on his bicycle on the Coonoor High Road. At that time, the respondent's vehicle, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against the cyclist. As such, the accident had happened. In the result, the deceased had succumbed to his injuries. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 27 years and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. In order to prove her case, PW1 had marked 9 documents which are as follows:- 1. Ex.P1 is the Copy of First Information Report; 2. Ex.P2 is the Rough Sketch; 3. Ex.P3 is the AR copy; 4. Ex.P4 is the Postmortem certificate; 5. Ex.P5 is the Charge sheet; 6. Ex.P6 is the Death Certificate; 7. In order to prove her case, PW1 had marked 9 documents which are as follows:- 1. Ex.P1 is the Copy of First Information Report; 2. Ex.P2 is the Rough Sketch; 3. Ex.P3 is the AR copy; 4. Ex.P4 is the Postmortem certificate; 5. Ex.P5 is the Charge sheet; 6. Ex.P6 is the Death Certificate; 7. Ex.P7 is the Legal heir certificate; 8. Ex.P8 is the School transfer certificate; 9. Ex.P9 is the Summon. 6. On the side of the respondents, no witness, no documents. On considering the evidence of PW1 and on perusal of the above mentioned documents, the tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.3,32,000/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The breakup of compensation are as follows:- Rs.3,24,000/- - For loss of income; (2250 X 1/3 X 2 X 12 X 18 =Rs.3,24,000) Rs.2,000/- - towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- - for loss of Love and affection and; Rs.1,000/- - for conveyance expenditure. 7. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant / the Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police, 3rd Battalion, Veerapuram, Chennai has challenged the said award. The learned Government Pleader argued that actually the accident had been caused by the negligence of the deceased, who had suddenly crossed the road at high speed without following traffic rules, lost his balance and as such the bicycle hit the respondent's vehicle, who had stopped the vehicle at the time of impact. The multiplier has been adopted by the tribunal as 18 instead of 12. In the absence of documentary proof, the income was fixed at Rs.2250/- per month, which is on the higher side since the deceased was a Coolie. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the claimants have moved E.P. proceedings against the respondents for attachment of the vehicle. Considering this aspect, this Court has taken the above appeal for disposal. The learned Government Pleader has further submitted that for depositing the compensation amount, the appellant / Government has to observe some legal formalities. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader has requested the court for sufficient time for depositing the amount. 8. The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month; his age was 27 years; as such the claimants are entitled to get adequate compensation. But the tribunal had granted a meagre compensation. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader has requested the court for sufficient time for depositing the amount. 8. The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month; his age was 27 years; as such the claimants are entitled to get adequate compensation. But the tribunal had granted a meagre compensation. The first claimant is the young widow of the deceased and on that ground she is entitled to get adequate compensation for consortium. But the tribunal had not considered compensation under the head of consortium. For funeral expenses Rs.2,000/- had been awarded which is on the lower side. The First Information Report had been registered against the driver of the respondent's vehicle. 9. 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.1537 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.1, Chennai, dated 30.07.2009, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal had come to a conclusion in favour of the claimants on two issues namely negligence and quantum of compensation on the basis of evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence, which were marked by the claimants. Therefore, the impugned order is found to be fair and justifiable. Therefore, this Court directs the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest, within a period of eight weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as per request of the learned Government Pleader. After such deposit being made, it is open to the claimants to withdraw their apportioned share amount, as fixed by the Tribunal, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1537 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.1, Chennai, after filing a memo along with this order. The compensation amount shall be shared among the claimants equally. 10. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Judgment and Decree passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai, dated 30.07.2009, made in M.C.O.P.No.1537 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.1, Chennai is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.