Vs.
1.N.Muthuramalingam
2.M.Kanjana
3.Hemalatha .. Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Petitioners
4.K.A.S.Manibalan .. Respondent No.4 / Respondent No.1 C.M.A.No.1274 of 2012:
The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Kamarajar Salai, Madurai ? 9. .. Appellant / Respondent No.2.
Vs.
1.Maharajan
2.Pandiammal
3.M.Senthil Kumar
4.M.Jeyalakshmi
5.M.Jeyashree .. Respondent Nos.1 to 5/Petitioners
6.K.A.S.Manibalan .. Respondent No.6 / Respondent No.1 Common Prayer:- Appeals are filed under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the award and decree dated 13.02.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.977 and 978 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court / Fast Track Court No.1, Madurai.
C.M.A.No.1273 of 2012:
These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the common award, dated 13.02.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.977 and 978 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court / Fast Track Court No.1, Madurai.
2. Since both the appeals arise out of a common award passed in respect of the same accident occurred on 20.10.2009, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to according to their litigative status before the Tribunal.
4.The claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased persons. According to the claimants, the deceased persons were travelling in a motor cycle bearing registration No.TN 58 M 6114 at Madurai ? Theni raod at Cheekkanoorani, at that time, a bus bearing registration No.TN 60 D 2145 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle, as a result of which, the deceased persons were died.
5.Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined 25 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked 11 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.11. On the side of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was marked.
6.The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and arguments of the Counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the driver of the bus and directed the second respondent to pay the compensation.
7.At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company fairly conceded that he is not disputing the accident but he is disputing only the quantum awarded by the Tribunal. So, the finding of the Tribunal regarding rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus does not require interference.
8.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants and perused all the materials available on record.
9.A perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal clearly shows that the Tribunal has discussed in detail and found that the driver of the bus was the cause for the accident and further, in respect of quantum, the Tribunal had come to a correct conclusion and awarded just and reasonable compensation and therefore, there is no infirmity in the award passed by the Tribunal and the same does not require interference at the hands of this Court.
10.In the result, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed and the award dated 13.02.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.977 and 978 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court / Fast Track Court No.1, Madurai, is confirmed. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interests and costs, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already deposited and on such deposit being made, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their share as apportioned by the Tribunal, with proportionate interests and costs, without filing any formal application before the Tribunal. No Costs.
To
1.The Additional District Court / Fast Track Court No.1, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madurai.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.