Skip to content


N. Venkatachalapathy Vs. Aynex Mary and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.M.A(MD)Nos. 364 & 365 of 2005
Judge
AppellantN. Venkatachalapathy
RespondentAynex Mary and Others
Excerpt:
motor vehicles act - section 173 -.....against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2000 made in m.c.o.p.no.163 of 1997 on the file of the motor accident claims tribunal (i additional subordinate judge) trichy. prayer:-civil miscellaneous appeal filed under section 173 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2000 made in m.c.o.p.no.519 of 1997 on the file of the motor accident claims tribunal (i additional subordinate judge) trichy.) common judgment 1. the present civil miscellaneous appeals have been filed challenging the common award passed in m.c.o.p.nos.163 of 1997 and 519 of 1997 dated 10.11.2000 on the file of the motor accident claims tribunal (i additional subordinate judge) trichy. 2. the accident took place on 24.12.1995 at about 23.45 hours. when the deceased was proceeding on a.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2000 made in M.C.O.P.No.163 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional Subordinate Judge) Trichy.

Prayer:-Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2000 made in M.C.O.P.No.519 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional Subordinate Judge) Trichy.)

Common Judgment

1. The present civil miscellaneous appeals have been filed challenging the common award passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.163 of 1997 and 519 of 1997 dated 10.11.2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional Subordinate Judge) Trichy.

2. The accident took place on 24.12.1995 at about 23.45 hours. When the deceased was proceeding on a TVS 50 on Tiruchy Manapparai Main Road from West to East, the lorry belonging to the first respondent bearing Registration No.TN 49 Z 3076 dashed against the two wheeler and he was thrown out and died on the spot itself.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded totally a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- with interest at 12% per annum and ordered to be divided by both the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.519 of 1997 to Rs.2,25,000/- and in M.C.O.P.No.163 of 1997 to Rs.3,25,000/-.

4. These two appeals have been preferred on the ground that the Tribunal while awarding compensation adopted the multiplier, followed contrary to the established principles of law and therefore, the multiplier to be modified. Further, the objection of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.3,750/- for the deceased Arokkiam is erroneous.

5. This Court is unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company in view of the fact that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.3,750/- for the deceased is not excessive and the same is just and proper because the deceased Arokkiam was doing the business of Milk vendor. Further, the defendants in these cases are eight persons including two wives. Therefore, the Courts must be lenient while awarding compensation. Considering the plight of the family members of the deceased, who was the bread winner of two families, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal deserves to be considered and accordingly, the common award passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.519 of 1997 to Rs.2,25,000/- and in M.C.O.P.No.163 of 1997 to Rs.3,25,000/- by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional Subordinate Judge) Trichy is confirmed.

6. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeals are dismissed. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest and costs before the Tribunal in both M.C.O.P.Nos. 519 and 163 of 1997 less the amount if any already been deposited within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants in both the appeals are permitted to withdraw their respective shares, as per the ratio of apportionment made by the Tribunal, with accrued interest and costs through RTGS by filing necessary application before the Tribunal concerned. No costs.


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