ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. VIMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.22,61,900/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Cuddalore in M.C.O.P.No.1461 of 2006 for the death of deceased Saravanan in the road traffic accident on 2.3.2006 the appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Brief facts are that on 2.3.2006 at about 8.30 a.m, when deceased Saravanan was traveling as a pillion rider in the TVS Victor motor cycle bearing Regn.No.PY-01-V-8781 driven by one R.Shankar (P.W.2), a lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-30-Y-4789 came in opposite direction on the left side of Cuddalore-Vridhachalmm main road near Thambipettai bus stand. At that time, lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-30-Y-4789 owned by the 7th respondent was driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motor cycle due to the impact, the riders of the motor cycle sustained severe injuries. The deceased Saravanan was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Cuddalore, where inspite of treatment, injured Saravanan succumbed to injuries. Regarding the accident, a criminal case was registered against the lorry driver in Crime No.53 of 2006 on the file of Kurinjipadi Police Station under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC. The deceased Saravanan was working as Draftsman in Vanavil Dyes & Chemicals Limited and was earning Rs.10,407/- per month. He was also attending to agriculture. Stating that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and that the family has lost the support of their bread winner, the claimants respondents 1 to 6 have filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.

(3.) Resisting the claim petition, the appellant Insurance Company has filed counter stating that the accident was only due to the carelessness and negligence of the rider of the motor cycle bearing Regn.No.PY-01-V-8781. The lorry driver, who was on the wheels at the time of accident, did not have valid driving licence and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The Insurance company also denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased and contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants is on the higher side.