LAWS(MAD)-2010-2-685

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAJALAKSHMI

Decided On February 08, 2010
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Appellant
V/S
RAJALAKSHMI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arose out of the claims filed in respect respect of the same accident that took place on 28.9.1996. The legal heirs of one Sethuraman, who died in the accident filed M.C.O.P. NO. 1145 of 2000. The legal heirs of Karthikeyan filed M.C.O.P. No. 1429 of 2000. The compensation claimed in M.C.O.P. No. 1145 of 2000 was a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- but the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 21,00,000/- lakhs. In M.C.O.P. No. 1429 of 2000, the claim made was a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/-. Against that award, these two appeals have been filed.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the accident took place at 7.30 a.m. on 28.9.1996 when the car driven by one of the deceased viz., Sethuraman and was going South to North on Ullundurpet Road, he noticed the lorry insured by the Appellant coming from the opposite side direction and moving on the wrong side, thereby, he slowed down the car and swerved to the extreme West In spite of the best efforts, the oncoming lorry hit against the car and another lorry coming from behind the car also dashed against the car. With the result, the car was jammed between the two lorries, resulting in two deaths.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that when the impact was on account of the conduct of both the lorries, the Tribunal ought to have apportioned the negligence between the Appellant and the fifth Respondent/insurance company which had insured the lorry that came from behind the car. The learned Counsel also read the relevant portion of the evidence. PW.2, who was the wife of the deceased Sethuraman, was also the eyewitness. The learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal erred with regard to the finding as regards to the quantum of compensation. The learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal failed to note that the deceased Karthikeyan was a bachelor and therefore, different parameters ought to have been fixed for fixing the compensation in this regard.