(This case has been heard through video conference) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the fair and decretal order dated 30.12.2009 passed in MCOP.No.1688 of 2009 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court – IV, Chennai.
2. The case in brief are as follows:
On 31.03.2003 at about 19.00 hours, while the appellant was riding a bi-cycle at Cenotaph Road in front of ICICI Bank, proceeding from east to west and at that time a motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN-22- L-7679 came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner, 2/7 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.2250 of 2010 as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent is the Insurer of the said vehicle.
3. Mr.T.G.Balachandran, the learned counsel for the appellant had submitted his arguments. As per his submissions, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts that the deceased died due to the injuries suffered by him in the road traffic accident and had dismissed the claim petition. Therefore, the claimants who are the legal heirs of the injured viz., Mani had filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following rulings in support of his contention regarding the enhancement of compensation.
(i) 2000 (1) LW page 222
(ii) 2007 (10) SCC 643
(iii) 2009 (1) TLNJ page 73
4. Mr.C.Purushothaman, learned counsel for the second respondent/ Insurance Company has submitted his arguments. As per his 3/7 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.2250 of 2010 submissions, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had properly appreciated the facts of the case and had arrived at a conclusion that the injured/Mani died after four years from the date of the accident. Therefore, the claim petition was dismissed. If at all the claim of the legal heirs is accepted, they would be entitled only to medical expenses in this case. The injured had taken treatment only from Government Hospital, Chennai. Therefore, no medical bills were furnished. Therefore, they are not entitled to any compensation as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act dealing with the claim of compensation.
5. Points for consideration Whether the appellants/claimants are entitled to claim compensation.
6. Perused the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP.No.1688/2009, the counter filed by the second respondent/Insurance Company and the Judgment/Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the 4/7 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.2250 of 2010 Memorandum of appeal filed in this appeal.
7. On perusal of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, it is found that the claim petition itself was filed in the year 2003. The date of death of the injured/Mani had not been mentioned anywhere in the claim petition. On perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is found that only the medical certificate is shown and the injuries were marked. The death has taken place after four years from the date of accident. The MCOP.No.1688/2009 was disposed of in the year 2009 and the claim petition was filed by the injured/Mani only. During the pendency of the MCOP, the said Mani/injured died. Therefore, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rejected the claim of the legal heirs of the injured/Mani and stated that they are not entitled to claim compensation under the head “No Fault Liability”. The learned counsel for the claimants/legal heirs of the injured/Mani had quoted the Rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the “No Fault Liability” in cases of this nature. The Tribunal had perused the said citation and distinguished them from the facts of the present case regarding the deceased Mani, who had suffered injuries in the 5/7 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.2250 of 2010 Road Traffic Accident in the year 2005. He had filed MCOP in the year 2005. When the petition was pending, he died 4 years later. Therefore, the ruling cited by the learned counsel for the claimants/appellants was not accepted regarding the claim of compensation under the head “No Fault Liability”. The reasoning of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is justified under the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, the appellants/claimants are not entitled to any compensation. Therefore, the Order of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference by this Court.
The point for consideration is answered in favour of the Insurance Company and against the appellants/claimants herein.
In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
12.02.2021 dh Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking order To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court – IV, Chennai.
2. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court, Madras.
6/7 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.2250 of 2010 SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP.J., dh C.M.A.No.2250 of 2010 12.02.2021 7/7 http://www.judis.nic.in