Legal heirship certificate not required before receiving compensation

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and decree made in MACTOP.No.639 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Krishnagiri dated 01.03.2012.)

[This Appeal has been taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing]

1. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant insurance company challenging the award dated 01.03.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri) in MCOP.No.639 of 2009.

2. The Appellant Insurance company has challenged the award on the following grounds namely (a) the claimants have not established before the Tribunal that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Venkatesh Achari who died as a result of an accident on 18.09.2006 caused by a vehicle insured with the Appellant and (b) the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.

3. The Tribunal under the impugned award has directed the Appellant insurance company to pay the claimants a compensation of Rs.5,96,000/- together with interest and costs as detailed hereunder:

4. Before the Tribunal, the claimants have filed documents which were marked as Exhibits and one witness was examined as a witness before the Tribunal(PW1). On the side of the Appellant/Insurance Company neither any document was filed nor any witness examined before the Tribunal.

5. Heard Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the Appellant. Notice sent to the respondents have returned with the endorsement “Addressee left”. Since this Court is going to confirm the Award, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

6. The impugned common award pertains to two fatal accident claims namely MCOP.Nos.639 & 645 of 2009. The instant appeal pertains to MCOP.No.639 of 2009. Insofar as MCOP.No.645 of 2009 is concerned, the claimants have produced the legal heirship certificate of the deceased Manickam which was marked as Ex.A7. However, the claimants in MCOP.No.639 of 2009 have not produced the legal heir ship certificate of the deceased Purushothaman. Even before the Tribunal, the Appellant insurance company has taken a consistent stand that the claimants in MCOP.No.639 of 2009 are not the legal heirs of the deceased Purushothaman. While that be so, the Tribunal ought to have directed the claimants to produce the legal heirship certificate for the deceased Purushothaman. However, this is not a sufficient ground to set aside the award. The only condition that can be imposed by this Court in this Appeal is that the claimants before receiving the compensation are directed to produce the legal heirship certificate for the deceased Purushothaman to enable them to claim the compensation for his death.

7. With regard to the second contention raised by the Appellant Insurance company that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive is concerned, the same cannot be accepted by this Court for the following reasons:

(a) The deceased Purushothaman was doing Goldsmith and real estate business and was aged 23 years at the time of the accident. In the claim petition, the claimants have pleaded that the deceased Purushothaman was earning Rs.10,000/- per month at the time of the accident. However, the Tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-. The accident happened in the year 2006. This Court after giving due consideration to the year of the accident as well as the age and avocation of the deceased is of the considered view that the assessment of notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month cannot be considered to be excessive as alleged by the Appellant.

(b) The Tribunal has