Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3868
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Annamalai - Respondent
C.M.A.No.1833 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.9852 of 2021
Decided on : 06-01-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.D.Bhaskaran
For the Respondents: Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar, Mr.S.L.Venkatesan
Dependency of claimants on the deceased is paramount for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, superseding mere legal heir status.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act - It was argued by the Insurance Company that a previous settlement related to the same deceased barred the second claim. Court emphasized that dependency, not merely legal heir status, is critical for compensation entitlement. (Paras 4, 10, 11, 12)
(B) Compensation - The law is intended to provide support to dependents of the deceased and should not be undermined by procedural settlements when dependents are affected. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The deceased Chinnaponnu died following a road accident while being a pillion rider. Her parents filed a claim for compensation after her passing, arguing their dependency on her.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's award of Rs.2,14,220/- was confirmed as just because it recognized the financial dependency of the claimants post the loss of their daughter.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of the parents to compensation despite a prior legal heir settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that compensation must prioritize the actual dependents' needs over technical legal declarations about heirship, reinforcing that the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act is to provide for those left behind financially.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident leading to death and compensation claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contentions regarding dependency and compensation. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis on dependency and rightful claims. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. affirmation of compensation award and dismissal of appeal. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
Challenging the award dated 05.06.2020 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Cheyyar in M.C.O.P.No.49 of 2014, the Insurance Company has come up with the above Appeal.
2. On 22.02.2014, about 5.45 p.m., while the deceased Chinnaponnu was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler bearing Regn.No.TN-25-AV-2290, being driven by one Subramani, on Malayampattu Koot Road from Arani to Polur, near Kalambur, a car bearing Regn.No.TN-07-BS-7936, belonging to the 1st respondent, which was insured with the 2nd respondent, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two-wheeler, due to which Chinnaponnu sustained grievous head injury. Immediately, Chinnaponnu was admitted in Government Hospital, Arni and there, she was referred to Government Hospital, Vellore. While on the way to Government Hospital, Vellore, Chinnaponnu died. Aggrieved by the death of Chinnaponnu, respondents 1 and 2, who are her aged parents, filed a Claim Petition in M.C.O.P.No.49 of 2014 seeking a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- as compensation.
3. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and eight documents viz., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, R.W.1 was examined and seven documents viz., Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.7 were marked. After adjudication, the Tribunal had partly allowed the Claim Petition and awarded a sum of Rs.2,14,220/- as compensation to the claimants. Challenging the same, the same, the present Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Insurance company vehemently contended that the Claims Tribunal failed to note that on the basis of the Legal Heir Certificate issued by the Authority concerned, the Appellant/Insurance Company has settled the claim filed by the husband of the deceased on the file of the Lok Adalat and deposited the compensation amount in the Court. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the second award of Rs.2,14,220/- for the same cause of action is liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that, the deceased Chinnaponnu was taking care of her parents at their old age, as there are no other siblings to take care of them. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the Tribunal is right in awarding compensation to respondents 1 and 2 and he prayed for dismissal of the Appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7. The claimants are the father parents of the deceased, while the 3rd respondent is the husband of the deceased. There is no quarrel with the fact that the legal heir certificate is issued to the 3rd respondent, being the husband of the deceased. However, it is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased, viz., the daughter was taking care of them at their old age, as there are no other siblings to take care of them. The compensation is quantified and paid to the claimants under the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT to compensate the loss of dependency on account of the death of the bread winner, in view of the benevolent provisions under the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT .
8. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that a claim in respect of the death of the deceased had been paid to the 3rd respondent before the Lok Adalat and, therefore, a second claim is impermissible. However, there is no material placed before this Court to show that the claimants herein were shown as respondents in the claim petition filed by the 3rd respondent herein. Mere legal heir status alone cannot form the basis to provide the claim to the legal he
