IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.04.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No. 443 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Pallavan House, Pallavan Salai, Chennai.2. ... Appellant vs. 1. R. Radha 2. N. Deepak ... Respondents . . . Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award and decree dated 29.7.2005 passed in MCOP No. 548 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal (Additional District & Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No. IV) Poonamallee. . . . For appellant : Mr. M. Krishnamoorthy For respondents : V. Jagannathan . . . JUDGMENT
The Transport Corporation has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 29.7.2005 passed in MCOP No. 548 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District & Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No. IV) Poonamallee.
2. It is a case of fatal accident. The accident in this case happened on 8.1.2003. The deceased S. Nagarajan is a computer operator working in Central Bank of India. He was 51 years old at the time of the accident. On his death, the wife aged 48 years and the son aged 21 years filed a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.20,03,000/- stating that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.17,855.51.
3. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- as compensation with 9% interest and 12% default interest.
4. In appeal it is primarily contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the interest granted at 9% and default interest at 12% is on the higher side.
5. On going through the award of the Tribunal on merits, this Court is not able to find any good reason as to why the finding of the Tribunal based on oral and documentary evidence let in with regard to the negligence and the liability of the appellant transport corporation to compensate the claimant and the quantum has to be interfered with on merits. The Tribunal had gone into the oral and documentary evidence let in by the claimant in detail which is orally refuted by appellant. It is the case of appellant that the oral evidence adduced by the driver of the appellant corporation has not been properly considered. A mere oral plea not based on no material cannot be a ground to alter the award passed on merits.
6. Considering the fact that the accident happened in the year 2003 and the award was passed in the year 2005 and in view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2005 (3) C.T.C. 373 (Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation vs. S.Rajapriya), the interest stands reduced to 7.5% p.a. There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of default interest. Accordingly, the default interest granted at 12% by the Tribunal stands set aside. The award insofar as quantum is confirmed.
7. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the modification with regard to interest alone. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2009 is closed. No costs.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks eight weeks time to deposit the award amount and the same is allowed. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount as per the order of this Court.
ra
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(Additional District & Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court No. IV)
Poonamallee