SMT. CHITRA S., PUNEETH KUMAR P.S., AKASH S. AND SMT. PARVATHAMMA Vs. PRAMOD SIMHA J. AND M/S. TATA A.I.G. GEN. INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellants -claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 26.2.2011 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City (SCCH -14) in MVC No. 2607/2010. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 6,75,000/ - with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization for the death of late P. Selvaraj in the motor vehicle accident. Brief facts leading to the case are that, appellant No. 1 is the wife of the deceased and appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor sons and appellant No. 4 is the mother of the deceased. The deceased was doing lathe work and was earning Rs. 16,000/ - per month. That, on 23.2.2010, at about 8.15 a.m., the deceased P. Selvaraj was crossing K.R. Road, near 14th cross junction, Bangalore, at that time, one Maruthi Alto car bearing No. KA -05 -MC -4594 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to NIMHANS and admitted as inpatient from 23.2.2010 to 26.2.2010. Again, he was referred to Victoria hospital and during the course of treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 28.2.2010. It is the case of the claimants that they spent amount towards transportation charges and funeral charges and the entire family of the claimants were depending upon the earning the deceased. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, they were put to great inconvenience and suffered from mental shock and agony.

(2.) AFTER service of notice, responding No. 1 was placed ex -parte. Respondent No. 2 -insurance company filed written statement admitting issuance of the policy in favour of respondent No. 1 and that, the policy was valid as on the date of the accident. It has denied the age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased. It is further contented that the accident was due to negligence of the deceased, who crossed the road where there was no provision for a pedestrian to cross the road. Accordingly, it sought to dismiss the petition. After considering the merits of the case, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 6,75,000/ - with interest at 6% p.a. from date of petition till realisation.

(3.) AS against this, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent -insurance company, during the course of his arguments, submitted that the Tribunal has appreciated the entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary and has rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, he submitted to dismiss the appeal.