P ANANDAN Vs. PHARAMOND DIT DÏ COSTA ANTOINE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed by the appellants, viz., the owner and insurer of the vehicle, is directed against the award dated 13.6.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Pondicherry in M.C.O.P. No. 591 of 2000, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 64,27,000 for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants-respondents, who are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, filed the claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming a compensation of Rs. 5,00,00,000 for the death of Jeannine Hugetta Madaline Vuillod, who is the wife of the claimant No. 1 and the mother of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The respondents-claimants' case was that on 5.9.2000 the claimant No. 1 and the deceased were travelling in a vehicle bearing registration No. PY 01-B 3551, which was going to Chennai Airport from Pondicherry in the East Coast Road. When the vehicle, which was a taxi, was just opposite to Shasun Guest House at Pillaichavadi, a lorry bearing registration No. TN 25-4239 came from the opposite direction towards Pondicherry at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner hit against the tourist taxi, as a result of which the driver and the passengers sustained grievous injuries. The driver of the tourist taxi and the wife of the claimant No. 1 died due to the said accident. The further case of the claimants is that a motor cycle bearing registration No. PY 01-D 4197 came behind the tourist taxi and hit the rear side of the car, in which the motorcyclist was thrown out and sustained injuries. After the said accident a criminal case was registered against the lorry driver under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A, Indian Penal Code in Cr. No. 279/2000 by the Auroville Police Station. The claimants' case is that the deceased, viz., the wife of the claimant No. 1, was employed as an 'Attache' in French Embassy, Jakarta, Indonesia. She was earning Rs. 2,00,000 per month and was shortlisted for promotion to a higher post in which she would have got Rs. 5,00,000 per month.

(2.) The respondent No. 2, viz., the insurer of the car, denied the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No. 4, namely, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vellore, which is the insurer of the lorry, contested the claim on various grounds and stated that the amount claimed is exorbitant and disproportionate.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal formulated two issues for its consideration, viz.,