IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 13.07.2023

Coram

The Honourable Mr.Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

C.M.A.No.661 of 2017

Rose Mary (died)

Micheal (died)

1.Clement

2.George Victor

...Appellants

Versus

Ganapathy (died)

1.United Insurance Company Limited,

Third Party Cell Claims Office,

Co-Operating Buildings,

No.38, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

2.Sinthamani

3.Senthil Kumar

...Respondents

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying to enhance the award dated

25.04.2013 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.95 of 2005 on the file of the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and IV Additional District Judge,

Ponneri.

(Cause Title was accepted vide order dated 24.09.2014 made in

M.P.No.1 of 2014 in C.M.A.No.SR39924 of 2014)

For Appellants

:

Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja

For Respondent – 1

:

Mr.T.Ananthasekar

For Respondents – 2 & 3

:

Notice not ready

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the

appellants/claimants (legal representatives of the deceased claimant

Rose Mary) seeking to enhance the compensation awarded by the

learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and IV Additional District

Judge, Ponneri vide award dated 25.04.2013 in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.95 of

2005.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 23.07.2004, at about 10.30 a.m., while one Rose Mary was

standing on the edge of the road to cross the road at Karunguzhi

Village, Ramalingam Madam, Madhuranthagam Taluk, Kancheepuram

District, a Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.TN 22 K 4776 coming in

the same road towards Chennai dashed the said Rose Mary, due to

which, the said Rose Mary had sustained severe injuries. Hence, the

said Rose Mary had filed a claim petition in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.95 of

2005 against the owners of the offending vehicle viz., one Ganapathy,

2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

respondents 2 & 3 and the insurer of the offending vehicle/first

respondent Insurance Company. Pending the claim petition, the

claimant Rose Mary had died on 19.03.2008 due to the injuries which

she sustained in the accident. After her death, her husband and two

sons were impleaded as petitioners 2, 3 & 4 in the said claim petition

and claimed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries

sustained by the deceased claimant Rose Mary in the accident.

3. The first respondent/Insurance Company had filed its counter

statement in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.95 of 2005 denying all the averments

made by the appellants/claimants in the Claim Petition.

4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the appellants/claimants,

two witnesses were examined viz., P.W.1 & P.W.2 and 20 documents

were marked as Exs.P1 to P20. On the side of the respondents, no

witnesses were examined and no documents were marked as exhibits.

5. On an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence

produced before it, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the legal

3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

representatives of the deceased claimant Rose Mary are only entitled to

get the medical expenses of the deceased claimant as compensation.

By arriving at such a conclusion, the Tribunal had allowed the claim

petition in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.95 of 2005 and directed the first

respondent/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as

compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased claimant

Rose Mary.

6. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal, the appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal before this

Court.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted

that at the time of accident, the claimant Rose Mary was 50 years old.

She was working as a Mid-day Meal Organiser and her monthly

income was Rs.1,500/-. Due to the accident, the claimant Rose Mary

had sustained severe injuries and after the accident, she was taking

treatment a