Challenging the apportionment of compensation awarded by the claims Tribunal to the first respondent, who is the father-in-law of the first appellant, in M.C.O.P.No.252 of 2001, dated 23.09.2005, the appellants are before this Court.
2. Despite the pendency of appeal in SR stage for 9 years, no steps have been taken to get it numbered.
3. Since this appeal is pending for 9 years at the SR stage, it is taken up for disposal at the SR stage on merits.
4. One Mr.C.Damodaran, aged 46 years, an Advocate, earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month, died in an accident that occurred on 15.02.2001. Hence, his wife, minor daughter and his father have filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.252 of 2001. The Claims Tribunal, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence has awarded a sum of Rs. 17,65,000/- (Seventeen Lakhs and sixty Five Thousand only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The break-up details of the same are as follows:
The Claims Tribunal has awarded the total compensation with the following apportionment.
First Claimant - Rs.8,00,000/-
Second Claimant - Rs.7,00,000/-
Third Claimant - Rs.2,65,000/-
5. Challenging the compensation awarded to the third claimant i.e. the Father-of-law of the first claimant, the first claimant along with her minor daughter has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal has not given any reason for awarding a sum of Rs.2,65,000/- to the first respondent. It is his further submission that the first respondent has ancestral properties and he is getting a rental income of Rs.50,000/- per month and therefore he is not entitled to any compensation. It is his further submission that the Claims Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the Maintenance Proceeding was filed under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C by the first appellant against the first respondent and it ought to have rejected the claim of the first respondent.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the materials on record.
8. The Claim for compensation and the claim for maintenance stands on different footings. Even assuming that the first respondent has ancestral properties and he is getting rental income for a sum of Rs.50,000 /-, that cannot be a ground to totally reject compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Though the above contention has not been taken before the Tribunal, however, the said contention deserves to be rejected for the simple reason that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is payable not only to the dependents but also to the legal representatives, of the deceased. Considering the income of the 3rd claimant and extent of dependency on the deceased, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.2,65,000/- to the 3rd claimant/1st respondent herein, which is not excessive. Accordingly, the said contention is rejected.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court sees no reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal, there being no merits either in the plea made in the appeal or in the miscellaneous petition to condone the delay. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Consequently, the civil miscellaneous appeal is rejected in the SR stage itself.
09.02.2017 arr/GLN
1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Erode
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
DR.S.VIMALA, J.
arr/GLN C.M.A. No.Sr.22480 of 2006 and C.M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 09.02.2017