SOBHANA RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. K VENKIDARATHNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the claimants in O.P.(M.V.)No.1164 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. They are the wife and minor son respectively of late C. Ramakrishnan, who was employed as a Naik in the Military Engineering Service. The husband of the first appellant and the father of the second appellant sustained fatal injuries at about 10 a.m. on 19.6.2000 when the motor bike which he was riding collided with a lorry bearing registration No.TN- 02/B-6381, driven by the fifth respondent and owned by the first respondent. The deceased died on the spot. The appellants had in the claim petition prayed for award of the sum of Rs.80,10,000/- as compensation under various heads. They contended that the accident took place solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver namely the fifth respondent before the Tribunal.

(2.) The owner and driver of the lorry, who were joined as respondents 1 and 5 respectively before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, did not enter appearance and file a written statement, with the result, they were set ex-parte. The insurer of the lorry who was impleaded as the second respondent entered appearance and filed a written statement as also an additional written statement wherein it admitted the fact that the lorry involved in the accident was covered by a valid policy of insurance issued by it and that the driver of the vehicle possessed a driving licence and a badge. It however contended that the accident did not take place on account of the negligence of the driver of the lorry and that the driver of the motor bike namely the deceased, was responsible for the accident. They also contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. The mother and father of the victim of the accident namely the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the first appellant, were joined as respondents 3 and 4 in the claim petition. The third respondent filed a written statement admitting the status of the claimants. But, he contended that he was primarily dependent on the deceased for his livelihood and therefore, he may be awarded the maximum permissible compensation. The mother of the victim did not file a written statement for the reason that shortly after the claim petition was filed, she passed away on 15.05.2001. Thereupon, her other children namely supplemental respondents 6 to 10 before the Tribunal, were impleaded as per order passed on I.A.No.3349 of 2003. They entered appearance through counsel and filed a written statement dated 11.6.2004 wherein the only averment made was that the maximum possible amount may be allowed to their share. Additional respondents 6 to 10 also admitted the fact that the first claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is the wife and the second claimant is the minor son of their brother Ramakrishnan who succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident referred to in the claim petition.

(3.) Before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the first claimant examined herself as PW1 and produced and marked Exts.A1 to A7. The third respondent namely the father of the victim was examined as RW1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal considered the rival contentions and the materials on record and held that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, the fifth respondent. The Tribunal also held relying on Ext.A2 postmortem certificate and Ext.A3 death report that Ramakrishnan died as a result of the injuries suffered by him in a motor accident.