Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2198 (MAD)

V. Geetha v. Minor. Gobinath

2014-07-21

S.VIMALA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. Vadivel, the deceased in a motor accident, is stated to have had two wives and children through both of them. 2. M.C.O.P.No.902 of 2003 was filed by the first wife and children born through her, as legal representatives of Vadivel, claiming compensation in respect of death of him, (without impleading the alleged second wife and her daughter) in a motor accident that took place on 30.03.2003. 3. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,62,000/-as compensation. Claiming that one V.Geetha and Minor.Veena are also dependants and legal representatives of the deceased and that they were neither impleaded nor awarded any compensation, petition (I.A.No.440 of 2007) was filed seeking to set-aside the order, dated 19.04.2004 in M.C.O.P.No.902 of 2003. 4. The said petition was opposed on the ground that already a gift settlement deed, dated 23.09.2003, had been executed by the mother of the deceased in favour of the proposed parties and also that a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- has been paid to them. 5. The petition came to be dismissed on 31.03.2008. Challenging the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 5.1. A perusal of the order passed in I.A.No.440 of 2007 goes to show that the dismissal is mainly on the ground that the date of marriage between the deceased Vadivel and V.Geetha is not mentioned in the petition and the birth certificate of the minor girl, Veena, is not filed. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The main ground of challenge in this Revision Petition is that all the legal representatives of the deceased ought to have been added in the petition and in default, the Tribunal should have given an opportunity to the party omitted to be added, to be added in the claim petition and that, it has not been done. 8. According to the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, the documents filed on the side of the respondents, namely, Exs.B-1 and B-2 would go to show that the relationship between the alleged second wife and the deceased Vadivel is an admitted fact and therefore, considering the avowed objective of the act, the Court should have allowed the petition. 9. 8. According to the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, the documents filed on the side of the respondents, namely, Exs.B-1 and B-2 would go to show that the relationship between the alleged second wife and the deceased Vadivel is an admitted fact and therefore, considering the avowed objective of the act, the Court should have allowed the petition. 9. While the matter was being heard, a memo, dated 14.10.2011, has been filed on behalf of the first Revision petitioner, where-under it has been stated that the claim made by the alleged second wife, Geetha, is not pressed and the claim may be considered only in respect of the minor daughter, Veena. 9.1. The said memo is recorded. 9.2. Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, when there is a death resulting from an accident, an application for compensation shall be filed by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased and where all legal representatives of the deceased had not joined in any such application and the legal representatives, who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the petition. Therefore, Minor.Veena has to be added as fourth respondent. 10. Inasmuch as the relationship between the alleged second wife and the deceased Vadivel is an admitted fact, the daughter born to them (Veena) is entitled to get the share in the compensation amount. At the same time, the fact that already there had been a settlement under which some properties have been settled and some amount has been paid is also brought to the notice of the Court. 11. Considering the overall circumstances, the compensation amount has to be determined. 12. Earlier on 18.10.2011, while the matter was being heard, this Court has passed an interim order, directing not to disburse 1/4thof the compensation amount in order to secure the interest of the alleged minor. 13. This Court is the opinion that a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) will be an appropriate amount of compensation to be payable to Minor.Veena. Even though the amount of compensation is awarded to Minor.Veena, there is no necessity to set-aside the order, as there is no fresh determination of quantum of compensation, but only a reapportionment of compensation from out of the total amount. Minor.Veena is to be awarded compensation from the total amount of compensation by the Tribunal. Even though the amount of compensation is awarded to Minor.Veena, there is no necessity to set-aside the order, as there is no fresh determination of quantum of compensation, but only a reapportionment of compensation from out of the total amount. Minor.Veena is to be awarded compensation from the total amount of compensation by the Tribunal. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not set-aside, but the order is modified only in terms of redistribution of quantum of compensation. 14. Therefore, Minor.Veena will be added as fourth respondent in MCOP No.902 of 2003 by the learned Principal District Judge, Erode, and she will be entitled to the compensation of Rs.50,000/-, which is payable from the amount kept undisbursed, as per the order of this Court, by the Tribunal in MCOP No.902 of 2003. On credit being given to the fourth respondent for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, the petitioners in MCOP No.902 of 2003 will be entitled to have the disbursement of the remaining amount, as per the proportion as ordered by the Claims Tribunal. 15. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, on the above terms. No costs. Consequently the connected MP is closed.