Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 4022 (MAD)

Meera v. Rajam

2014-10-28

R.SUBBIAH

body2014
Judgment 1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (VI Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai, dated 20.10.2006, in M.C.O.P.No.986/2011. The said M.C.O.P.No.986 of 2011 was disposed of by the Tribunal by way of a common award along with M.C.O.P.No.870 of 1998, which was filed by the cross objectors in the above cross objection / respondents 1 to 3 in the above appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the above appeal. 3. Brief facts, which are necessary to decide the issue involved in this appeal as well as cross-objection, are as follows_ 3(a) Two claim petitions came to be filed before the Tribunal, one in M.C.O.P.No.870 of 1998 and another one in M.C.O.P.No.986 of 2001, claiming compensation in respect of the death of one E.Subramani, who died in a motor accident that had occurred on 06.10.1997. M.C.O.P.No.870 of 1998 was filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein, claiming to be the wife, minor daughter and mother of the deceased Subramani. M.C.O.P.No.986 of 2001 was filed by the appellants herein claiming to be the wife and minor children of the deceased Subramani. 3(b) Before the Tribunal, on the side of the respondents 1 & 3 (claimants in MCOP.No.870 of 1998), the 1st respondent/wife (Rajam) examined herself as P.W.1, besides examining five other witnesses as P.W.2 to P.W.6 and 21 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. On the side of the appellants (claimants in MCOP.No.986/2001), 1st appellant (Meera) examined herself as P.W.7, besides examining nine witnesses as P.W.8 to P.W.16 and 28 documents were marked as Ex.P.22 to Ex.P.49. On the side of the Insurance Company, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. 3(c) The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence, has come to the conclusion that the 1st respondent-Rajam is the wife and the 2nd respondent-minor Bhavani is the daughter and the 3rd respondent-Krishnammal is the mother of the deceased Subramani respectively. The Tribunal has further concluded that the 1st appellant-Meera is not the wife of the deceased Subramani; but the minor appellants 2 & 3 were born to the 1st appellant-Meera through the deceased Subramani. The Tribunal has further concluded that the 1st appellant-Meera is not the wife of the deceased Subramani; but the minor appellants 2 & 3 were born to the 1st appellant-Meera through the deceased Subramani. By coming to such conclusion, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.986 of 2001 as against the 1st appellant-Meera and awarded compensation to the respondents 1 to 3 as well as the minor appellants 2 & 3. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants. 4. I have carefully heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. On careful perusal of the entire materials, I find that in order to prove the factum of marriage between the 1st respondent-Rajam and the deceased Subramani, the mother of the deceased Subramani viz., 3rd respondent herein was examined as P.W.2 and she had spoken about the marriage between the 1st respondent-Rajam and the deceased Subramani. The Tribunal has found that even in the Voters List, which was marked as Ex.P.11, one Durai was mentioned as the husband of the 1st appellant-Meera. Though it was represented by the 1st appellant-Meera before the Tribunal that the name Durai was wrongly entered in the voters list-Ex.P.11, the Tribunal has observed that if the entries regarding the relationship between the said Durai and 1st appellant-Meera were wrongly mentioned, the 1st appellant-Meera should have taken steps to correct the said mistake with the concerned authorities, but she failed to do so. Further, by going through Ex.P.47, medical case sheet in respect of the 1st appellant-Meera issued by the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the year 1992, the Tribunal has found that in Ex.P.47, the age of the 1st appellant-Meera was shown as 24 years; therefore, on the date of alleged marriage between the 1st appellant-Meera and the deceased Subramani ie., on 20.01.1983, as per the marriage invitation-Ex.P.22, the age of the 1st appellant-Meera should be 14 years, which cannot be accepted. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the marriage invitation-Ex.P.22 was created for the purpose of this case. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the marriage invitation-Ex.P.22 was created for the purpose of this case. Thus, the Tribunal on going through the entire case records and based on the evidence of the mother of the deceased, has held that the 1st respondent-Rajam is the wife of the deceased Subramani and the 1st appellant was living only along with the deceased Subramani and dismissed the claim petition as against the 1st appellant-Meera and allowed the claim petitions in respects of the appellants 2 & 3 as well as the respondents 1 to 3. Under such circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the said findings rendered by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. So far as the cross-objection is concerned, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the cross-objectors (respondents 1 to 3) that the children of the 1st appellant-Meera, namely the appellants 2 & 3 are also not entitled to the compensation in respect of the death of the said Subramani. But, I am not inclined to accept the said contention of the learned counsel for the cross-objectors, because the appellants 2 & 3 were born through the deceased Subramani and as such, the appellants 2 & 3 are entitled to the compensation. Further, I do not find any scope for enhancing the compensation amount as claimed by the cross-objectors (respondents 1 to 3) since the tribunal, only by following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has correctly calculated the compensation amount. Under such circumstances, the cross-objection is also liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Cross Objection are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. 8. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with proportionate interest and costs as award by the Tribunal, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the 1st respondent-Rajam is entitled to withdrawn her share amount with proportionate interest. Since the 3rd respondent Krishnammal died, her share amount shall be equally shared by the minor appellants 2 & 3 and the minor respondent-2. On such deposit, the 1st respondent-Rajam is entitled to withdrawn her share amount with proportionate interest. Since the 3rd respondent Krishnammal died, her share amount shall be equally shared by the minor appellants 2 & 3 and the minor respondent-2. The share amounts of the minor appellants 2 & 3 and minor respondent-2 shall be deposited in any one of the nationalised bank till they attain majority and theirs mothers viz., 1st appellant and the 1st respondent are entitled to withdraw the interest accrued thereon, once in three months.