NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. K.BOOPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in CMA(MD).No.1580 of 2011, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.1324 of 2005, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.2, Madurai.

(2.) THE short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioners, who are the husband and daughter of the deceased B.Rakku, have filed a claim in M.C.O.P.No.1324 of 2005, claiming a compensation of Rs.3,93,500.00 from the respondents, for the death of the said Rakku in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 14.02.2005, when the (deceased) Rakku was travelling as a loading and unloading Coolie in the 2st respondents APE Pickup Van bearing registration No.TN-59W-2295 from Ettimangalam to Pudusukkanpatti, from north to south and at about 14.30 hours, when the vehicle was crossing the ditch near near Mottapalam, Pudusukkampatti, the driver of the van drove the van in a rash and negligent manner due to which there was heavy jolting of the van. As a result, the (deceased) Rakku was thrown out of the van and sustained severe head injuries and died on the way to the hospital. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent's driver. The deceased was aged 34 years at the time of accident and used to earn Rs.100.00 per day. Hence, the petitioners, who are the dependants on the income of the deceased, have filed a claim as against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the van bearing registration No.TN-59W-2295.

(3.) THE 2nd respondent, in his counter has denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of deceased, manner of accident. It was submitted that the driver of the 1st respondent's van had not been rash and negligent as alleged in the claim. It was submitted that the policy issued in respect of the vehicle did not cover any risk as regards gratuitous passengers. It was pointed out that the 2nd petitioner is a married women and as such cannot claim any compensation on account of the death of her mother. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. The 2nd respondent in his additional counter has submitted that the vehicle in question is an APE Pick up van having seating capacity of only one and that no loading and unloading Coolie is entitled to travel in it and that no premium has been paid to cover the said risk. It was also submitted that the F.I.R does not disclose that the deceased was an agricultural Coolie.