SUDHA Vs. R.NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the award dated 18.3.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.105 OF 2008 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore challenging the quantum as well as the fastening of liability upon deceased V.Sampathkumar.

(2.) Deceased Sampath Kumar worked as a Project Officer in the Department of Civil Engineering Department in Kumaraguru College of Technology, Coimbatore from 2004 to 2006. In August, 2006, he started his partnership business along with his father Vasudevan under name and style of Athanoor Amman Textiles. On 25.2.2008, when deceased Sampathkumar, Lourdhuraja, Rayer Peter and Rajendran were proceeding to Athanoor Amman Textiles in an Ambassador Car bearing Regn.No.MSL.4900 driven by the deceased Sampathkumar from Coimbatore to Palladam from north to south on Trichy Road in a moderate speed. At about 10.00 A.M, when car was proceeding near Shanthi Gears, a lorry bearing Regn.No.TN.57-A.8699 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Ambassador car and all inmates of the car sustained grievous injuries and were admitted in K.G.Hospital, Coimbatore and on the same night, Sampathkumar succumbed to injuries. The 1st respondent driver of the lorry lodged a complaint on 25.2.2008, based on which a case in Crime No.158 of 2008 was registered against deceased Sampathkumar, who drove the car. After the discharge from the Hospital, P.W.2 Rajendran went to Police Station and lodged a complaint on 24.3.2008 alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of lorry driver. Police was not inclined to receive his complaint on the ground that already case has been registered in Crime No.158 of 2008 against deceased Sampathkumar. Deceased Sampathkumar was earning more than Rs.25,000/- from his partnership business in textiles. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of lorry driver and that family has lost the support of the bread winner Sampathkumar, claimants, who are wife, son and parents of the deceased, filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.

(3.) Respondents 3 and 4 filed counter resisting the claim petition and denied that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-57-A-8699 by the first respondent. The deceased Sampathkumar, driver of Ambassador car MSL 4900 suddenly came to wrong side and contributed to the accident. No liability can be saddled against them for the own negligence on the part of deceased Sampathkumar. If at all the claimants are entitled to compensation, it could be claimed only against owner of Ambassador car since the deceased is guilty of violation of traffic rules and policy conditions of owner of car. The claimants have to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing Regn.No.TN.57.A.8699 and that he was holding valid and effective driving licence to drive lorry at the time of accident. Claimants are to prove that respondents 3 and 4 also raised objection as to age of deceased, hospitalisation, employment, loss of earnings and contended that the compensation claimed is excessive.