Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
B. MANJULA & OTHERS V/S V. SUDHARSHANAM NAIDU & ANOTHER, decided on Tuesday, November 14, 2017.
[ In the High Court of Madras, C.M.A. No. 2935 of 2017. ] 14/11/2017
Judge(s) : A. SELVAM & P. KALAIYARASAN
Advocate(s) : A. Salomi. R1, G. Jeremiah, R2, M. Krishnamoorthy.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page






#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw









    (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.3524 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Chief Judge Court of Small Causes] Chennai.)A. Selvam J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award dated 04.04.2017 passed in M.C.O.P.No.3524 of 2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chennai.2. The appellants herein as petitioners have filed M.C.O.P.No.3524 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for getting compensation where the respondents have been arrayed as respondents.3. The deceased by name Balakrishnan is the husband of first petitioner and the father of the remaining petitioners. On the fateful day of accident the first respondent has driven tractor with trailor bearing registration Nos.TN 20 AH 2152 and TN 20 AH 2167 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased in the place of accident and due to accident he passed away. Further it is averred in the petition that the deceased is a construction contractor and thereby earned Rs.18 000/- per mensem. The vehicle which caused accident has been insured with the second respondent. Under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed for getting compensation.4. In the counter filed on the side of the second respondent it is averred to the effect that the accident has not been happen due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. The petitioners have not filed any document for the purpose of proving the monthly income of the deceased. The petitioners have claimed excessive compensation and there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.5. On the basis of available evidence on record the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.13 04 912/- and in order to enhance the quantum of compensation the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the petitioners as appellants.6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ petitioners has repeatedly contended to the effect that at the time of accident the deceased as a construction contractor whereby he earned monthly income of Rs.18 000/- and the trial Court without considering the abundant evidence available on record on the side of the appellants/petitioners has erroneously fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8 000/- and therefore the quantum of compensation fixed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is liable to be modified.7. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has contended to the effect that after accident the brother of the deceased has preferred a police complaint wherein it is clearly stated that the deceased has served as a coolie and further on the side of the appellants/petitioners no documents have been filed for the purpose of proving monthly income of the deceased and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly fixed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8 000/- and further in respect of other heads the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has given excessive compensation and therefore the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed.8. The specific case of the appellants/petitioners is that the deceased at the time of accident has earned Rs.18 000/- per mensem. As rightly pointed out on the side of the second respondent on the side of the appellants/petitioners no document has been filed for the purpose of proving the regular monthly income of the deceased. The Tribunal after considering the available evidence on record has fixed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8 000/-. Further in Ex.P1 it has been clearly stated that the deceased at the time of accident served as coolie. Considering the lack of evidence on the side of the appellants/petitioners with regard to regular monthly income of the deceased and also considering his age the Tribunal has rightly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8 000/-.9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ petitioners has relied upon the decision rendered in Special Leave Petition [Civil] No.25590 of 2014 by the Hon'ble Apex Court [Constitutional Bench] wherein in a case of death aged about 40 to 50 25% can be awarded towards future prospects. In the instant case 30% has been awarded and likewise in the remaining heads the Tribunal has awarded excessive amounts. Considering the overall circumstances this Court is of the view that the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal is not liable to be modified and altogether the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed.In fine this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. The award dated 04.04.2017 passed in M.C.O.P.No.3524 of 2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chennai is confirmed.