NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. C.VENU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.F.A.No.2864/2016 has been filed by the claimants, whereas, M.F.A.No.2947/2016 has been filed by New India Insurance Company against judgment dated 07.12.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Since, both the appeals arise out of the same accident, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that on 31.10.2012 at about 6.45 p.m. when the deceased M.Dasarath Kumar was riding motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-53-R-8602 on Hosur Service Road, from south to north direction and when the deceased reached near Volks Wagen Show room, a lugguage auto rickshaw bearing registration No. KA-01- AA-5708 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver at high speed came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, he was shifted to St.Johns Medical College and Hospital for further treatment, where the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 21.11.2012.

(3.) Thereupon, the claimants filed a petition under Section 166(1) of the Act, in which inter alia it was pleaded that the deceased was aged about 24 years and was working as Marketing Executive at Sulekha Com New Media Private Limited and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.30,000/-. It was also pleaded that appellant No.1 is the father, appellant No.2 is the mother, appellant No.3 is the sister who were dependant on the income of the deceased. It was pleaded that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw by its driver viz., respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 who is the insurer is liable to pay the amount of compensation. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.30 Lakhs along with interest at the rate of 12%. The respondents filed the objections in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was denied that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw by its driver. The respondents also disputed the age, income and avocation of the deceased and further pleaded that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased. It was also pleaded that the claim made by the appellant is excessive and exorbitant.