K MANIMARAN Vs. M GOPINATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant against the Award and Decree, dated 09.11.2006, made in M.C.O.P.No.4060 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.II, Additional District Court, Chennai, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,05,000/- together with 7.5% interest per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation.

(2.) HAVING not been satisfied with the said Award and Decree, the appellant/claimant has filed the above appeal praying additional compensation of Rs.4,95,000/-.

(3.) THE second respondent in their Counter had resisted the claim petition that the respondent denies all the averments that are contained in the claim petition except those that are specifically admitted herein and put the petitioner to strict proof of the same and the averments that are not admitted by this respondent. This respondent denies the way in which the alleged accident took place as described in claim petition and puts the petitioner to strict proof of the same. On the date of accident as alleged in the claim petition the first respondent vehicle involved in the accident was not all insured with this respondent/insurance company. In any event the petitioner should strict proof of the same. THE injured is a minor child aged six years and he could not be walking on the platform on that day and suddenly crossing on the road and the injured himself walked with negligent manner which resulted and contributed to the accident. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. In any event the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. THE alleged accident had occurred due to fault on the part of the petitioner's minor child and not due to the negligence of the driver as alleged in the claim petition. In any event the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. THE respondent denies the age, place, date and time of accident as set out in Column Nos.3, 4, 6 and 8 of the claim petition and puts the petitioner to strict proof of the same. THE compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, fanciful, exaggerated and disproportionate to the accident claim as alleged by the petitioner. As such, the second respondent prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.