NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. BABY EZHILARASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant second respondent has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal challenging the award and decree dated 11.9.2003 made in MCOP.No.1826 of 2000 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai for the death of Prabhu in the Motor accident occurred on 24.11.1999. The Respondents 1 to 5/petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs.6 lakhs for the loss of the life of one Prabhu, who is the husband of the first petitioner, father of petitioners 2 and 3 and son of petitioners 4 and 5 by contending that on 24/25.11.1999 at about 24 hours, the deceased viz. Prabhu was travelling in a van bearing Regn. No. TN 31 A 1458 proceeding in By-pass Road, Mamallapuram and at that time, a lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-09-B-2165 belonging to 6th Respondent herein, driven in a rash and negligent manner endangering public safety came from behind and hit the van, resulting which, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died and at the time of accident, the deceased was 21 years and working as Travel Agent and earned Rs.10,000/- p.m and claimants are wife, daughter and son and parents of the deceased and claimed compensation as against the owner and insurer of the abovesaid lorry, who are sixth respondent and appellant herein and respondents 1 and 2 in the O.P.

(2.) The owner of the vehicle remained exparte and only this appellant-Insurance Company has contended that on 24/25.11.1999 at midnight hours, a lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-09 B-2165 collided at Maxi Cab bearing Regn.No.31 A-1458 from rear and Mr. Prabhu, passenger of the abovesaid Maxi cab was just alighting from the Maxi Cab, sustained crash injuries and died and the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the maxi cab, which was not properly parked on the road and the FIR was filed against the driver of the lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-09 B-2165 but the accident was occurred due to contributory negligence of the driver of the maxi cab and also contended that the claimant should prove the age, income, occupation, insurance coverage and the compensation claimed by claimants is totally illegal and unsustainable.

(3.) Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, first petitioner has deposed as PW.1 and examined one Dhanasekaran as PW.2 and marked Ex.P1-copy of post-mortem certificate, Ex.P2-Death certificate, Ex.P3-Legal heir certificate, Ex.P4-copy of FIR, Ex.P5-Transfer Certificate, Ex.P6-Driving licence of the deceased, Ex.P7-Letter from P.E.S. Engineers Private Limited and Ex.P8-Car delivery receipt. On the side of the appellant/2nd respondent, no witness was examined and no document was marked.