UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. K KUMUDHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is filed by the insurance company against the award dated 01.04.2004 made in M.C.O.P No.2676 of 2001 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai.

(2.) BACKGROUND facts in a nutshell are as follows: The deceased Unnikrishnan met with motor vehicle accident on 05.04.2001 at about 17.30 hours. The said deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in the motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-07-H-8632. While the motor cycle was proceeding from south to north direction from Porungudi towards Besant Nagar, a lorry bearing registration No.TN-01-R-6439 came in a rash and negligent manner in the same direction and hit the rear side of the motor cycle and caused the accident and due to the same, the pillion rider was thrown out and sustained multiple grievous injuries. He was died in his way to the hospital. The claimants are wife and son of the deceased. They claimed a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The lorry was insured with the appellant-Insurance company who resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

(3.) HEARD the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On the side of the appellant, no one was examined and no document was marked to substantiate their claim. The wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. P.W.2 is one Srinivasan, who is the Assistant Manager in Reserve Bank of India was examined. P.W.3 is one Arunagiri who is the eye witness to the accident was also examined. Ex.P1 is the copy of First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the copy of post-mortem certificate, Ex.P3 is the death certificate, Ex.P4-legal heir ship certificate, Ex.P5-Salary certificate of the deceased, Ex.P6-Service particulars of the deceased were marked. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry and awarded compensation and it is a question of fact. Therefore, the same is confirmed.