C.M.A.No.3480 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.04.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

C.M.A.No.3480 of 2017

1.Jagannathan (Died)

2.Sagunthala

3.Vimala

4.Selvapandiyan

5.Rengadurai

6.Dhamotharan

7.Parameswari

... Appellants

[Sole appellant (i.e. 1^st appellant) died. The

second to seventh appellants were brought on

record as the legal heirs of the first appellant

vide

order

dated

16.03.2023

in

C.M.P.Nos.5717, 5720 & 5722 of 2023.]

Vs.

1.Sahul Hameed

2.National Insurance Company Limited,

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

Chennai.

... Respondents

_______________

Page No. 1 of 10

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

C.M.A.No.3480 of 2017

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the fair and final order dated 16.12.2016

made in M.C.O.P.No.129 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal [Sub Court], Nagapattinam.

For Appellants

: Mr.B.Jawahar

For R1

: No appearance

For R2

: Mrs.R.Sreevidhya

J U D G M E N T

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the first

appellant/claimant against the fair and final order dated 16.12.2016 passed

by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [Sub Court], Nagapattinam in

M.C.O.P.No.129 of 2009.

2. During the pendency of this appeal, the first appellant/claimant

died and therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased first appellant/claimant

were impleaded as the second to seventh appellants vide order dated

16.03.2023 in C.M.P.Nos.5717, 5720 & 5722 of 2023.

_______________

Page No. 2 of 10

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

C.M.A.No.3480 of 2017

3. The brief facts leading to the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

are as follows:-

(i) The deceased first appellant/claimant filed M.C.O.P.No.129 of

2008 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [Sub Court],

Nagapattinam seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs

only) for the injuries sustained by him as well as the damages to his

property in the accident that occurred on 01.08.2005.

(ii) On 01.08.2005, at 04.30 a.m., when the first appellant/claimant

was sleeping in his thatched house, the vehicle belonging to the first

respondent, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, rammed

into his house, causing injuries to the first appellant/claimant as well as

damage to his property.

4. The second respondent Insurance Company has filed a counter

affidavit denying its liability and also putting the appellant/claimant to

strict proof for claiming compensation for injuries, loss of earning as well

as damage to property. Though initially, the second respondent Insurance

_______________

Page No. 3 of 10

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

C.M.A.No.3480 of 2017

Company did not raise any question with regard to the ownership of the

property which is the basis of the claim for compensation for damage to

property, an additional counter came to be filed, in and by which, the

appellant/claimant was called upon to prove the ownership of the property

as the patta cannot be taken as a proof of his title.

5. Before the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant examined himself as

P.W.1 and an Engineer was examined as P.W.2 to elicit the loss caused to

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

evidence was adduced. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and

documentary evidence, fixed a sum of Rs.34,700/- [Rupees Thirty Four

Thousand and Seven Hundred only] towards personal injuries alone.

Insofar as damage to property, the Tribunal disallowed the claim of the

appellant/claimant on the ground that the appellant/claimant did not

produce any evidence to establish his ownership of the property, which is

subject matter of the accident.

6. This Court, has by a separate order passed today, allowed

C.M.P.No.22133 of 2017. The following documents filed by the

_______________

Page No. 4 of 10

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