Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2987 (MAD)

Superintendent of Police v. Kasthuri

2018-09-17

V.M.VELUMANI

body2018
JUDGMENT : V.M. Velumani, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Award dated 23.11.2007, made in MCOP.No.856 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/I Additional District Judge, Thirunelveli. 2. The appellants are respondents in MCOP.No.856 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/I Additional District Judge, Thirunelveli. The respondents/claimants have filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Jebamalai. 3. According to the respondents, one Jebamalai was driving a motorcycle bearing Regn.No.TN BY 02 C6181 and at that time, a Jeep bearing Regn. No.TN 69 G 0261, belonging to the appellants driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, in the opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle. Due to the same, the said Jebamalai sustained grievous injuries and subsequently, died in spite of treatment given to him. The respondents are the legal heirs and dependants of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 40 years and was owning a mixer machine and was earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month. The respondents stated that they are entitled to compensation of Rs. 31,55,000/-, but, restricted their claim to a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- 4. The appellants in the counter statement denied all the averments in the petition and contended that the accident occurred only due to negligence of the deceased as he was influenced in alcohol at the time of accident. In any event, the amount claimed is excessive. 5. The Tribunal considering the pleadings oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the appellants and awarded a sum of Rs. 12,13,150/- as compensation to the respondents. 6. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants have come out with the present appeal. 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in its finding that the deceased was not responsible for the accident. The deceased was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident and the accident occurred only due to his negligence. The deceased only dashed against the right portion of the Jeep and fell down and driver of the Jeep is not responsible for the accident. The deceased was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident and the accident occurred only due to his negligence. The deceased only dashed against the right portion of the Jeep and fell down and driver of the Jeep is not responsible for the accident. The complaint given against the driver of the Jeep was closed as mistake of fact. He further submitted that the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 9,000/- per month without any basis. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the respondents proved that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Jeep. He further contended that the appellants failed to substantiate their contention that at the time of accident the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and that he was responsible for accident. The respondents filed documents to prove the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased. The respondents produced passbook and statement of accounts from Bank to prove the income of the deceased. He further contended that the income fixed by the Tribunal is very meagre and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 10. The contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants is that the accident occurred only due to the fact that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and that in the First Information Report, it has been stated that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and he was responsible for accident are not proved by the appellants. Except in the First Information Report, no other document was relied on by the appellants. On the other hand, the respondents have filed Ex.P105, Postmortem report, which does not disclose that the deceased was consumed alcohol at the time of accident. The Tribunal considered all the materials on record and evidence of PW.2 in proper perspective and held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the Jeep. 11. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal considering the documents filed by the respondents and the deceased was owning Mixing machine, fixed monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 9,000/- per month and awarded a sum of Rs. 11. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal considering the documents filed by the respondents and the deceased was owning Mixing machine, fixed monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 9,000/- per month and awarded a sum of Rs. 10,08,000/- as loss of income, which is just and proper. There is no error warranting interference by this Court for such finding. Further, the amounts granted by the Tribunal in other heads are also just and proper and it is not excessive or exorbitant. 12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, by confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 23.11.2007, made in MCOP.No.856 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/I Additional District Judge, Thirunelveli. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 13. The appellants are directed to deposit the entire award amount together with interest, within a period six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, after deducting the amount already deposited if any. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to their share as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal. The respondents 1 and 4 are permitted to withdraw their share on filing necessary application before the Tribunal. The share of the minor respondents 2 and 3 shall be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Banks till they attain majority on re-investment scheme.