IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.07.2023 C O R A M THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY C.M.A.No.2552 of 2021

1.Manisha

2.Minor Shivani Minor represented by his next friend and natural guardian Mother Manisha ...Appellants Vs

1.Manickkam

2.Jayamani

3.Jayakumari

4.Ramu

5.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Swarnambika Plaza, Omalur Main Road, Salem – 636 009. ... Respondents Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.1965 of 2016 on the file of the Special District Court, (II, Additional District Judge), FAC, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salem.

For Appellants : Mr.Amar D.Pandiya For R1 to R4 : No Appearance For R5 : Ms.R.Sree Vidhya

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.1965 of 2016 on the file of the Special District Court, (II, Additional District Judge), FAC, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salem.

2.The respondents 1 to 3/claimants are the father, step mother and step sister of the deceased, who filed M.C.O.P.No.1965 of 2016, showing the appellants herein/wife and daughter of the deceased as respondents 3 & 4, on the file of the Special District Court, (II, Additional District Judge), FAC, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salem, claiming a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Jayakumar, who died in the accident that took place on 16.05.2016.

3.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the 4^th respondent's car driver and directed the 5^th respondent/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.22,30,910/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% as compensation to the respondents 1 to 3 and appellants, under following heads:

4.Aggrieved over the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, the appellants/respondents 3 and 4 filed the present appeal.

5.Though notice has been served on the respondents 1 to 4 and their names are printed in the causelists, none appeared on behalf of the respondents

1 to 4, which shows that they are not interested to prosecute the case.

6.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the deceased, who is the husband of the 1^st appellant died in the accident that took place on 16.05.2016. The respondents 1 to 3/father, step mother and step sister of the deceased filed M.C.O.P.No.1965 of 2016, on the file of the Special District Court, (II, Additional District Judge), FAC, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Salem and obtained an award, whereby, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.22,30,910/- and fixed the following apportionment:

7.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/respondents 3 and 4 would submit that since the appellants are the wife and daughter of the deceased they are the dependent of the deceased. The 1^st respondent who is the father of the deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of filing the claim petition and he was living separately, the 2^nd respondent is also living with the 1^st respondent and the 3^rd respondent has got married and therefore, they are not the dependent of the deceased. Hence, he prayed to reduce the apportionment fixed to the respondents 1 to 3 and award the same to