UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD Vs. A.MANJULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.13,75,000.00 awarded for the death of K.Ashokan in a road traffic accident on 24.04.2007, the Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred C.M.A.No.1766 of 2011. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, Claimants have preferred C.M.A.No.3546 of 2011. Since both the appeals arise out of the same Award, they were heard together and stand disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in C.M.A.No.1766 of 2011.

(2.) BRIEF facts are that on 24.4.2007 deceased Ashokan was travelling in the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-09-AC 5496 as pillion rider from Panapakkam to Vellore on Madras-Bangalore Highways Road and when the motorcycle was nearing Ocheri Koot Road, a car bearing registration No.TN-23 AY 6069 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. Due to the impact, Ashokan sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, after the accident, Ashokan was taken to Government Hospital, Walajahpet and on way the hospital, Ashokan died. At the time of accident, deceased Ashokan was aged 37 years and was a Proprietor of Rajeswari Dyeing Factory, Panapakkam, Velore District and was earning Rs.40,000.00 per month. Regarding the accident, a criminal case was registered against the car driver in Crime No.161 of 2007 of Kaveripakkam Police Station. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the car driver, the Claimants, who are wife, daughter and parents of the deceased, have filed Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000.00.

(3.) BEFORE the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, 1st Claimant-Manjula examined herself as P.W.1, clerk in Ashokan Dyeing Factory viz., Govindarajan as P.W.2 and one Pattabhi, who was working as Commercial Tax Officer in Arakonam was examined as P.W.3 and eye-witness (Dayalan) was examined as P.W.4 and Exs.P1 to P19 were marked. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the side of Appellant-Insurance Company.