THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA
1. Pattammal
2. Angammal C.M.A. No.SR 74717 of 1998 and C.M.P.No.6047 of 1998
3. Anbumani … Appellants Versus The Managing Director, Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd., Pallavan Salai, Madras – 600 002 … Respondent PRAYER IN C.M.P. : Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 173 (I) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to condone the delay of 4 days in filing the C.M.A.
PRAYER IN C.M.A. SR: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and decree dated 24.03.1997 made in M.C.O.P. No.2548 of 1992 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.J.Mahalingam
JUDGMENT
This application has been filed to condone the delay of 4 days in filing the C.M.A SR No.74717 of 1997, which was filed challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P. No.2548 of 1992, dated 24.03.1997.
2. From the date and seal available in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of the C.M.P. No.6047 of 1998, it is evident that the appeal has been filed on 16.12.1997. But the application to condone the delay of 4 days in filing the CMA SR No.74717 of 1997 is taken up for hearing only on 16.06.2017, i.e., this day i.e. After 20 years, except for a single hearing on 08.06.1998 by which notice returnable by six weeks has been ordered.
3. The claim petition has been filed by the wife, mother and adopted son of the deceased Perumal. From the averments made in the affidavit, it is seen that deceased Perumal was working as a Plumber in Chennai Water and Sewage Board and he was earning a sum of Rs.1,798/-p.m.; the date of accident was 05.06.1992; he was initially admitted as inpatient in the Government Hospital, Saidapet, Chennai and he later died on the same day; the legal representatives of the deceased has filed the claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence and after considering the age and other details of the deceased, awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/- as compensation.
4. A perusal of the details of the award would go to show that the age of the deceased was 42 at the time of accident. The claimants have not filed any documents to prove the age of the deceased. In the complaint, i.e. in the First Information Report, the age of the deceased has been shown as 55 years. The Tribunal has drawn an inference that as the deceased was aged 55, the deceased ought to have retired from service within three years thereafter, and taking into account the annual loss, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/- as compensation.
5. Even though it is alleged that the delay is only for four days, the award passed in the year 1997, if it is to be revised, after a period of twenty years, serious prejudice would be caused to either side if the award is enhanced / reduced.
6. Neither the case has been listed nor steps has been taken to get the matter listed for a period of nearly two decades. The date of accident was on 05.06.1992. In the stated circumstances, finding no possibility of entertaining the petition, the C.M.P. stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected C.M.A.No.SR74717 is also dismissed. No costs.
7. The respondent / Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the amount awarded by the Tribunal if not already deposited within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
Dr.S.VIMALA, J.
vsi2 On such deposit, the appellant / claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount with accrued interest, if not already withdrawn as has been apportioned by the Tribunal.
16.06.2017 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking / Non speaking vsi2 To
1. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
C.M.P.No.6047 of 1998 (C.M.A. No.SR 74717 of 1998)