C.M.A.No.763 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on: 24.03.2023

Delivered on: 20.04.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

C.M.A.No.763 of 2020

&

C.M.P.No.6233 of 2023

1.Virudhambal

2.Anjalai

3.R.Boopathy

4.Valli

5.Lakshmi

... Appellants

Vs.

1.E.Muthulakshmi

2.Divisional Manager

United India Insurance Co. Ltd

D.O.No.13A, Nethaji road

Cuddalore-607001.

... Respondents

PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

to set aside the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2020, made in M.C.O.P.

1/23

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

C.M.A.No.763 of 2020

No.2333 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Principal

District Judge, Cuddalore).

For Appellants

: Mrs.Ramya V.Rao

For Respondents

: Mr.M. Krishnamoorthy for R2

No Appearance for R1

JUDGMENT

Claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Principal

District Judge, Cuddalore) in M.C.O.P.No.2333 of 2015 are the appellants in

the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. M.C.O.P.No.2333 of 2015 was filed by the appellants as claimants

being sisters and sisters-in-law of the deceased Ramamoorthy, who died as

bachelor, in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.04.2015, claiming

compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-.

3. It is the case of the appellants that on 18.04.2015, at about 19.30 hrs

the deceased was walking on the extreme left of Trichy-Chennai National

2/23

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

C.M.A.No.763 of 2020

Highway and near Sastha Garden at Veppur, the 1^st respondent's vehicle

bearing registration No.TN-01-V-6807, driven at great speed and in a rash

and negligent manner came from behind and dashed against the deceased,

resulting in the said Ramamoorthy sustaining fatal injuries. The 1^st,3^rd and 5^th

appellants are sisters of the deceased Ramamoorthy and the 2^nd and 4^th

appellants are the wives of the deceased brothers of said Ramamoorthy. It is

stated that all of them were dependent on the deceased and since

Ramamoorthy died at the prime age of 40 years and as a bachelor, earning

Rs.15,000/- per month, being employed as a driver, the respondents were

liable to compensate the appellants to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-.

4. The 2^nd respondent insurance company filed a counter, denying that

the appellants were legal heirs and dependants. According to the insurance

company, only dependants could claim compensation and in the present case,

none of the appellants were dependent on the deceased and therefore, the

insurance company prayed for the dismissal of the M.C.O.P itself.

3/23

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

C.M.A.No.763 of 2020

5. Before the Tribunal, the 3^rd appellant was examined as P.W.1 and

one Mr.Mariappan was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P6 were marked on the

side of the appellants. On the side of the respondents, no oral or documentary

evidence was adduced.

6. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred only because of the

rash and negligent driving of the vehicle belonging to the 1^st respondent.

7. In so far as compensation, the Tribunal held that the petitioners did

not produce any documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased

and also held that the appellants were not dependent on the income of the

deceased and proceeded to dismiss the M.C.O.P itself.

8. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the M.C.O.P, claimants are

before this Court by way of the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

4/23

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

C.M.A.No.763 of 2020

9. The grounds of challenge are:

(a) The Tribunal grossly erred in holding that merely because

claimants were living in separate houses and therefore they are not dependent

on the deceased.

(b) The legislature has used only the word “Legal Representatives” in

Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and therefore all legal

representatives of the deceased are entitled to seek compensation and

consequently the Tribunal erred in h