LAWS(SC)-2024-12-126

E.VAJRAMMA Vs. SHRIRAM GENERAL INS. CO.

Decided On December 10, 2024
E.Vajramma Appellant
V/S
Shriram General Ins. Co. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay of 1249 days is condoned subject there being no interest for the said period vis-a-vis enhanced compensation. Leave granted.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 28/2/2013, the deceased person Sh. E. Lakshimipathi met with a fatal accident while travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle. The motorcycle was hit by a lorry that was being negligently driven by the respondent No. 2 owner-cum-driver of the lorry. The lorry was insured with the respondent No. 1 insurance company. The deceased fell on the road as a result of the collision with the lorry and sustained multiple injuries and while being taken to the hospital, he succumbed to his injuries. The deceased was 43-years old at the time of the accident and worked as a building construction work supervisor. He was survived by his mother (appellant No. 5), father (appellant No. 6), wife (appellant No. 1) and three children (appellant Nos. 2 to 4).

(3.) On 10/4/2013, the appellants filed a claim petition being M.C.O.P. No. 2749 of 2013 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai ("MACT"), seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000.00 (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only). The MACT, by its order dtd. 18/12/2014, partly allowed the claim petition and granted a total compensation of Rs.15,53,200.00 (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs, Fifty-three Thousand, Two Hundred only) to the appellants herein, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition, i.e., 10/4/2013, till the date of deposit. The appellant No. 1, being the wife of the deceased, was held to be entitled to get Rs.8,53,500.00, the appellant Nos. 2 to 4, being the minor son and daughters of the deceased were held to be entitled to get Rs.2,00,000.00 each and the appellant No. 5 was held to be entitled to get Rs.1,00,000.00. The total compensation was payable by respondent No.1-insurance company on behalf of respondent No.2.