THILAGAVATHI Vs. C. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/petitioners have filed this civil miscellaneous appeal praying for enhancement of compensation as against the award dated 23.9.2005 passed in MCOP.No.1214 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Namakkal.

(2.) The appellants/petitioners have filed claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.10 lakhs for the death of one K.Ravi in motor accident occurred on 29.6.1999. Briefly, the case of the appellants/petitioners is that on 29.6.1999, at about 21.30 hours, while the deceased was riding his motor cycle (Yamaha) bearing registration No. TN 28 X 5511 on the side of Pallipalayam to Tiruchengode road, near Alamelu bus stop, the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.MDE 9561 drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner from Pallipalayam i.e., same direction and hit behind the deceased, due to which, the deceased sustained injuries and was taken to Rasi Hospital, Erode and then shifted to K.G.Hospital, Coimbatore on 30.6.1999 and he died on 29.7.1999 in the hospital and the accident was only occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry and hence a criminal case has been registered against the driver of the lorry in Cr.No.722/99 under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and subsequently altered into under Section 304(A) IPC. It is further stated in the petition that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 32 years and was doing textile business and earning Rs.10,000/- p.m and the claimants are wife, children and parents of the deceased and therefore claimed compensation of Rs.10 lakhs from the owner and insurer of the lorry.

(3.) Before the Tribunal, the first respondent who is the owner of the lorry remained exparte and the second respondent-insurance company filed counter, in which, it is stated that the accident was not occurred as alleged in the petition and contended that the accident took place only due to negligence of the deceased as he all of a sudden he darted across the road and deceased Ravi was not at all having valid driving licence to drive the motor cycle at the time of accident and also denied the age, avocation, income of the deceased, treatment and relationship of petitioners with the deceased and further stated that the claim of compensation is highly excessive.