Skip to content


The Director General of Police and Another Vs. Ezhil and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.M.A (MD) No. 486 of 2012 & M.P (MD) No. 1 of 2012
Judge
AppellantThe Director General of Police and Another
RespondentEzhil and Others
Excerpt:
motor vehicles act, 1988 - section 173 -.....challenging the same, the appellants have filed the present appeal, questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal mainly on the ground that the negligence fixed on the part of the driver of the vehicle which met with the accident was erroneous and the driver has driven the vehicle carefully and therefore the appellants are not liable to pay compensation. further the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the multiplier fixed by the tribunal is also erroneous and the same is liable to be modified. 4. the learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contention of the appellants by stating that the deceased was aged 31 years and he was self employed and he was earning monthly salary of rs.15,000/-. the accident took place in the year 2007. further, the.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award dated 15.09.2010 and made in M.C.O.P.No.971 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Dindigul and to set aside the same.)

1. The appellants/respondents have filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the Judgment and Decree, dated 15.09.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.971 of 2008, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Dindigul.

2. It is a case of fatal accident took place on 01.09.2007 at about 10.30 a.m., near Salaipudhur main road. The deceased Bosco Gnanaraj died, after taking treatment in the hospital on 25.10.2007. Thereafter, the legal heirs filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dindigul.

3. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case granted award of a sum of Rs.7,97,300/- towards total compensation. Challenging the same, the appellants have filed the present appeal, questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal mainly on the ground that the negligence fixed on the part of the driver of the vehicle which met with the accident was erroneous and the driver has driven the vehicle carefully and therefore the appellants are not liable to pay compensation. Further the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the multiplier fixed by the Tribunal is also erroneous and the same is liable to be modified.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contention of the appellants by stating that the deceased was aged 31 years and he was self employed and he was earning monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. The accident took place in the year 2007. Further, the deceased was an income-tax assessee. Hence, the Tribunal erroneously fixed the meagre amount as monthly income of the deceased.

5. Considering the rival contentions of both the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents, this Court is of the view that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal though it is less, the claimants have not preferred any Appeal for enhancement and this Court find that the award passed by the Tribunal is fair and reasonable which does not requires any intervention. Accordingly, the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Dindigul, in M.C.O.P.No.971 of 2008, dated 15.09.2010, is confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.

6. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the appellants are directed to deposit the entire award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs, to the credit of the claim petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not deposited already. On such deposit, the respondents 1 and 3/claimants are permitted to withdraw their shares with interest, through RTGS, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. The share of the 2nd respondent/minor claimant shall be deposited in a Nationalised Bank in Fixed Deposit, till he attains majority and on attaining majority, it is for his to approach the Tribunal for disbursement of his share, by making necessary application. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //