LAWS(MAD)-2010-8-485

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. V BALU PILLAI

Decided On August 31, 2010
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., CHENNAI Appellant
V/S
V. BALU PILLAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M.A.No.2989 of 2004 is preferred by the appellant insurance company against the award dated 01.03.2004 made in M.C.O.P No.5867 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II Small Causes Court), Chennai. Cross Objection No.112 of 2010 filed by the claimants against the appeal already preferred in C.M.A.No.2989 of 2004 against the award dated 01.03.2004 made in M.C.O.P No.5867 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II Small Causes Court), Chennai. When the matter came up for hearing, the Cross Objection No.112 of 2010 was not numbered, in the interest of justice, the Registry was directed to number the Cross Objection and both the appeal as well as the Cross Objection were taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) BACKGROUND facts in a nutshell are as follows: One deceased Andavar met with motor traffic accident on 27.06.1999, at about 22.00 hours. The deceased was riding his Bajaj M.80 Scooter bearing registration No.TN-09-M-7544 from West Mambalam to Vadapalani. While he was proceeding opposite to A.V.M Hall, a Mini Lorry bearing registration No.TNV 7761 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Bajaj M.80 Scooter. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The claimants are the parents of the deceased. They claimed compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. The said mini lorry was insured with the appellant insurance company who resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues. (i) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini lorry or not ? (ii) What is the compensation, the claimants are entitled to? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini lorry and awarded compensation of Rs.4,20,100/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition and the details of the same are as under. Loss of income= Rs.4,08,000/- Damage to clothe= Rs. 100/- Funeral expenses= Rs. 2,000/- Loss of marital life= Rs. 10,000/- ------------------ Total= Rs.4,20,100/- ------------------ Aggrieved by that award, the appellant insurance company has filed the present appeal and the claimants have filed the cross objection for enhancement.

(3.) HEARD the counsel. On the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. On the side of the appellant, no one was examined and no document was marked to substantiate their claim. One Balu Pillai, who is the father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. P.W.2 is Govindasamy, who is also a vegetable vendor in the same place. P.W.3 is one Thanusu, who is the eye witness to the accident. Ex.P1 is the heirship certificate, Ex.P2 is the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P3 is the death certificate, Ex.P4 is the death report, Ex.P5 is the age proof, Ex.P6 is the receipt, Ex.P7 is the income record, Ex.P8 is the FIR, Ex.P9 is the diagram, Ex.P10 is the charge sheet, Ex.P11 is the judgment copy were marked. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini lorry. It is a question of fact. The finding is based on valid materials. Therefore, the same is confirmed.