ANNAMMAL Vs. K. VELYUDA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants stated that on 28.06.1999, at about 5.30 p.m., when the 1st claimant's husband namely Raji was proceeding on his bicycle on the Katpadi Main Road, the 1st respondent's lorry bearing Registration No.TN -23 -A -5256, driven by its driver in a negligent manner, dashed against the said Raji. As a result, he had succumbed to his injuries. Hence, the claim petition has been filed against the respondents.

(2.) THE United India Insurance Company Limited has filed a counter statement and additional counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondents denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased. Further, the vehicle, lorry bearing Registration No.TN -23 -A -5256, has not been covered under valid vehicular documents namely F.C., R.C. and Insurance Policy, Permit and Tax. The driver of the lorry did not possess a valid driving licence. Further, the accident had been committed by the negligence of the deceased, while he was riding his bicycle. The respondent further stated that the deceased was aged about 65 years and his income was not Rs.5,500/ - per month, as alleged by claimants.

(3.) PW 1 had adduced evidence that the deceased Raji was her husband and that he was aged about 50 years and had worked with Southern Railway as Gatekeeper and earning Rs.5,500/ - per month as salary and that the other claimants are the sons and daughter of the deceased. PW1 further stated that on 28.06.1999, at about 5.30 p.m., when her husband was proceeding on his bicycle on the Katpadi Main road, the 1st respondent's driver had driven the lorry bearing Registration No.TN -23 -A -5256 in a negligent manner and dashed it against her husband and that as a result, he had succumbed to his injuries. PW1 further stated that all the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased and in support of her evidence, she had marked the above mentioned documents. PW2, eyewitness had adduced evidence that he had witnessed the said accident and he stated that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry.