S VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. S SENTHILKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is preferred by the claimant against award dated 05.09.2005 made in MACTOP No.104 of 2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Mettur.

(2.) BACKGROUND facts in a nutshell are as follows: The deceased met with motor vehicle accident that took place on 27.12.2002 at about 7.30 p.m. The deceased-Shanmugam was proceeding in his TVS 50 bearing registration No.TN-33-H-5164 from Mettur bus stand to his residence. While he was nearing Vels ITI, the first respondent came in his Yamaha motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-27-W-4726, which was insured with the third respondent-Insurance company, in a rash and negligent manner and hit the TVS 50. Due to which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and immediately he was taken to the Government Hospital, Mettur and later referred to G.M.K.M.C. Hospital, Salem for further treatment, where he died on 28.12.2002. The claimants are wife and son of the deceased. They claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. The third respondent- Insurance company resisted the claim. On pleadings the Tribunal framed the following issues:- "1. In whose negligence the accident occurred" 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation from the respondents" 3. If so, what is the compenstion 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 riding of the rider of the Yamaha motor bike belonging to the first respondent and the claimants are entitled to the compensation from respondents 2 and 3 and awarded a compensation of Rs.98,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition and the details of the same are as under:- Loss of income Rs. 96,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- ------------------ Total...Rs. 98,000/- ------------------ Aggrieved by that award, the claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancement.

(3.) HEARD the counsel. On the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. On the side of the respondents no one was examined and no documents were marked to substantiate their claim. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. PW2 is one Ganesan. PW3-Raji is the employer of the deceased. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of the post mortem report. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report. Ex.P4 is the rough sketch. Ex.P5 is the certified copy of the charge sheet. Ex.P6 is the original legal heirship certificate. Ex.P7 is the copy of the death certificate. Ex.P8 is the salary certificate. Ex.P9 is the medical certificate. Ex.P10 is the Insurance policy. Ex.P11 is the name transfer form-29. Ex.P12 is the salary certificate. After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the Yamaha motor bike belonging to the first respondent and the claimants are entitled to the compensation from respondents 2 and 3 and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence and the same is confirmed.