Dismissed

The Managing Director v. P.Dhakshinamoorthy

Madras HC5 Dec 2016CMA/1988/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against an award in a motor accident case was dismissed as the original claimant died before the appeal's hearing. The court clarified that while the appeal technically abated, by permission, the legal representatives of the deceased were allowed to withdraw the balance of deposited compensation upon producing identity proof.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed as abated. Legal representatives of the deceased claimant are permitted to withdraw the balance deposited amount upon producing proof of identity.

The Managing Director Vs P.Dhakshinamoorthy — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.12.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. SESHASAYEE

¶5

C.M.A.No.1988 of 2004

¶6

The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Villupuram Division No.I,
Villupuram. ..Appellant/First Respondent
Vs
1.P.Dhakshinamoorthy
2.P.S.Murugesan
3.National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Cuddalore Branch
165, Nethaji Road, Manjakuppam,
Cuddalore Taluk. ...Respondents/Petitioner & 2nd &3rd
respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and
decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional
Subordinate Judge), Cuddalore in MCOP.No.870 of 1998, dated
02.12.2002.
For Appellant : No Appearance
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muralidharan [for R1]
Mr.S.Vadivel [ for R3]
JUDGMENT

¶7

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation challenging the award passed in MCOP.No.870 of 1998 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Court), Cuddalore.

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

On 12.01.1998, a road accident took place while a car in which the claimant, who is the first respondent herein was travelling along with his wife and grand child met with a accident when a bus bearing registration No.TN31-N-0194 belonging to the appellant/State Transport Corporation collided with it. In the said accident, the wife and grand child of the first respondent/claimant died, whereas the claimant suffered serious injuries to his left hand. In all, three claims were preferred before the Tribunal and they are in MCOP.No.868 of 1998, MCOP.No.871 of 1998, and the one involved in the present claim in MCOP.No.9870 of 1998. MCOP.Nos.868 and 871 of 1998 were disposed of by a common award dated 04.07.2001 and a copy of the award is available on record as Ex.P5. Both in Ex.P5 as well as the award impugned in this case, the Tribunal has found that the driver of the bus of the appellant Corporation was negligent. There is no evidence whether the appeals were preferred challenging the award passed by the Tribunal in MCOP.Nos.868 & 871 of 1998.

¶10

For the injuries suffered, the claimant who was 58 years at that relevant time and was running a provision shop and having suffered 35% injury as per the medical information available on record by the evidence of PW.2, the doctor, made a claim for Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation, whereas the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,03,560/- with 9% interest. In quantifying the damages on the head of functional disabilities suffered by the claimant, the Tribunal has reckoned the income of the claimant at Rs.2,100/- per month (Rs.70/- per day) and applied a multiplier of 8 and then reduced it by 35%, and determined the compensation payable at Rs.70,560/-

¶11

It is submitted by the counsel for the first respondent herein that his client has passed away on 30.04.2007, and the same has been informed to the Court vide his memo dated 03.03.2009. He also submitted that the said factum was brought to the notice of the counsel for the Corporation at different points of time, but till date no steps have been taken to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased claimant. Technically the appeal abates, and even if it is to be considered on merit, I find no material to consider that the award is erroneous in any aspect. I therefore confirm the award passed in MCOP.No.870 of 1998 by the Tribunal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed as abated. No costs.

¶12

It is stated by the learned counsel for the claimant that the appellant has already deposited the award amount with interest and that certain amount of the compensation award with accrued interest has been withdrawn by the claimant. The legal representatives of the deceased claimant are permitted to withdraw the balance amount lying in the deposit of the Tribunal upon producing relevant materials that are necessary to

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

establish their identity as the legal representatives of the
deceased claimant.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
ds
To:
1)The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Additional Subordinate Court)
Cuddalore.
2)The Section Officer, VR Section
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.S.V.Vasanthakumar, Advocate sr.71710
+1cc to Mr.S.Vadivel, Advocate sr.71717
+1cc to Mr.R.Muralidharan, Advocate sr.71802
C.M.A.No.1988 of 2004
sr(co)
ss(19/01/2017)

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Managing Director v. P.Dhakshinamoorthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. P.Dhakshinamoorthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Vs P. Kamaraj

M/S United India Assurance Co. Vs M/S the Arya Vaidhya Pharmacy

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mathappan

New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Veerappan (Deceased)

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Thiru Ranganathan

Sn Raj Vs Union of India