Partly allowed

P.Deepa v. N.Mohanlal Babu

Madras HC23 Apr 2021CMA(MD)/872/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court modified the apportionment of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a motor accident claim. The court increased the appellant's share while reducing the respondent's share, citing the appellant's remarriage and the respondent's receipt of a pension as relevant factors.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of with orders modifying the compensation: the appellant is entitled to Rs.42,60,644/- and the first respondent to Rs.21,30,322/-.

P.Deepa Vs N.Mohanlal Babu — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.M.A.(MD)No.872 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved On : 17.04.2021 Delivered On : 23.04.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI C.M.A.(MD)No.872 of 2017 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.9344 and 11511 of 2017

¶4

P.Deepa

¶5

..Appellant/1^st Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.N.Mohanlal Babu

¶8

... 1^st Respondent/2^nd Petitioner

¶9

2.Mahesha

¶10

3.The Managing Director, B.M.T.C.K.H. Road, Bangalore.

¶11

4.The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Branch Manager, 1-Floor, Lakshmi Complex, 40, Sri Krishnarajendra Road, Fort, Bangalore, Karnataka State. .. Respondents 2 to 4/Respondents 1 to 3

¶12

Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to modify the apportionment of quantum of compensation between the appellant and the first respondent herein, awarded by the order dated 09.05.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.42 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Nagercoil.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan For 1^st Respondent : Mr.A.Balakrishnan For 3^rd Respondent : Mr.K.Gokul For 2^nd Respondent : No Appearance For 4^th Respondent : Mr.J.S.Murali

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.42 of 2013, dated 09.05.2017, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Nagercoil.

¶16

2.The appellant is the first petitioner, the first respondent is the second petitioner and the respondents 2 to 4 are the respondents 1 to 3 in the claim petition. The appellant and the first respondent have filed a petition in M.C.O.P.No.42 of 2013, claiming compensation for the death of the deceased in a motor https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

1/3

¶18

C.M.A.(MD)No.872 of 2017

¶19

accident that took place on 08.04.2010 at about 09.30 a.m. The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.63,90,966/- (Rupees Sixty Three Lakhs Ninety Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Six only) as compensation. In which, a sum of Rs.20,90,966/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Ninety Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Six only) was awarded towards the appellant and a sum of Rs.43,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs only) was awarded to the first respondent. Against which, the appellant has preferred this appeal questioning the apportionment of the compensation amount.

¶20

3.On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the second marriage of the wife is not a bar for claiming compensation. The second husband also died. The Tribunal has failed to note that the first respondent is only Clause II heir and that the first respondent is getting pension and prayed for enhancement in the apportionment of the compensation.

¶21

4.On the side of the first respondent, it is stated that the appellant re-married. Receiving pension is not a bar for getting compensation. Another son of the first respondent also died and prayed the appeal to be dismissed.

¶22

5.It is seen that the appellant remarried after the death of the first husband. It is stated that the second husband also died. The age of the first respondent is 70 years now. It is stated that he is getting pension. The first respondent is only a Clause II heir.

¶23

6.In view of the above circumstances, this Court is inclined to modify the apportionment made by the Tribunal. Hence, it is decided that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.42,60,644/(Rupees Forty Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Four only) and the first respondent is entitled to a sum of Rs.21,30,322/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Thirty Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Two only).

¶24

7.With the above directions, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶29

MRN

¶30

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

¶31

2/3

¶32

C.M.A.(MD)No.872 of 2017

¶33

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID – 19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶34

¶35

1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil.

¶36

2.The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai(2 copies)

¶37

+1 CC to M/s.S.SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN, Advocate ( SR-17470[F] dated 26/04/2021 )

¶38

+1 CC to M/s.K.P.NARAYANA KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-17501[F] dated 26/04/2021 )

¶39

+1 CC to M/s.J.S.MURALI, Advocate ( SR-17430[F] dated 26/04/2021 )

¶40

C.M.A.(MD)No.872 of 2017

¶41

SGS(CO)

¶42

TR(20.05.2021) 3P 7C

¶43

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

¶44

3/3

P.Deepa v. N.Mohanlal Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Deepa v. N.Mohanlal Babu

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

Kaleeswaran Vs The Inspector of Police

RitheshBawri Vs M/s. Dalmia Bharath(Ltd)

K.S.Ravichandran Vs Venkatesan

The Reliance General Insurance Vs Ponnarasi

The Branch Manager, Vs Danapal

The Branch Manager, Vs v. Amudha