IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Jayamma & Ors. - Respondents
CMA No. 954 of 2022 and CMP No. 7055 of 2022
Decided On : 26-06-2024
Motor Vehicles - Compensation - Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The court upheld the Tribunal's decision on compensation, emphasizing the entitlement of dependants and the necessity of legal heirship documentation.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was hit by a lorry while walking, resulting in his death. The petitioners sought compensation for the loss, claiming the deceased's income. The insurance company contested the claim, attributing negligence to the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was due to the negligent driving of the lorry's driver and that the petitioners were entitled to compensation despite the insurance company's claims regarding the deceased's family status.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to compensation and if the insurance company's claims regarding the deceased's family structure affected the award.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that dependants of the deceased are entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the absence of a legal heirship certificate does not negate the claim if no other dependants have come forward.
Result: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's award.
JUDGMENT :
R. Sakthivel, J.
[PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2015 made in MCOP No.258 of 2008 on the file of MACT (PDJ) at Krishnagiri.]
Feeling aggrieved with the Award dated February 11, 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Krishnagiri in M.C.O.P.No.258 of 2008, the second respondent / Insurance Company preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as per their rank in the Motor Claim Original Petition.
3. The case of the petitioners is that on July 11, 2007 at about 06.50 p.m., the deceased Pappiah was walking through Post Office Road, Barigal Town. At that time, a Lorry bearing Registration No.KA01-5495 belonging to the first respondent, hit Pappiah and caused injuries. Due to the injuries, Pappiah died on the spot. First petitioner is the wife and second petitioner is the daughter of the deceased Pappiah. According to the petitioners, the deceased earned a monthly income of Rs.6,000/- in Banana wholesale business. Accordingly, they filed a Motor Claim Original Petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only).
4. The first respondent, who is the owner of the Lorry, remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.
5. The second respondent/Insurance Company filed a counter stating that the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the deceased Pappiah. The deceased Pappiah crossed the road suddenly without hearing the horn blown by the Driver of the first respondent's Lorry. At the time of accident, the deceased Pappiah was 70 years old and deaf and dumb. Accordingly, the second respondent / Insurance Company prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. At trial, on the side of the petitioners, the first petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and one Seenappa was examined as P.W.2 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.5 were marked. On the side of the second respondent, one Mr.Ravi was examined as R.W.1 and Ex-R.1 was marked.
7. The Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record, found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Driver of the first respondent's Lorry. At the time of accident, the Lorry which caused accident was insured with the second respondent / Insurance Company. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the respondents are liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,62,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) to the petitioners as compensation.
8. Challenging the quantum of compensation, the second respondent / Insurance Company preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company has submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was 70 years old; that the petitioners did not file Legal Heirship Certificate of the deceased Pappiah; that the first petitioner is the second wife of the deceased and the second petitioner is the son of the deceased born through the first petitioner; that the deceased had first wife and through her, the deceased has four children. The petitioners did not produce the Legal Heirship Certificate. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed to allow this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
10. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record.
11. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of accident and the liability of the respondents. The only grievance of the appellant is that the deceased had first wife through whom, he has four children. In this regard, the Tribunal, in para 14 of its Award has held that the first petitioner, as a wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- and the remaining award amount of Rs.62,500/- shall have to be apportioned, on production of the Legal Heirship Certificate of the
The main legal point established is the application of legal precedents to determine the quantum of compensation for the deceased's death in a road accident.
The importance of establishing legal representation and sole legal heirship in motor accident claim cases for fair compensation distribution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the appellant to establish their status as the sole legal heir of the deceased original claimants in order to claim compensatio....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the deceased's monthly pension and the entitlement of claimants with independent income in determining compensation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the re-evaluation of the notional income and other relevant factors to determine the compensation amount in a motor vehicle accident case.
The legal heir of a deceased is entitled to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, regardless of estrangement, and mere nomination does not confer exclusive rights over the estate.
The burden of proof in negligence cases, admissibility of medical and police records, and principles for calculating compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding the impleading of legal representatives of the decease....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.