BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. JEYANTHI, MINOR WINMALAR, MINOR PRAVEENKUMAR, MINOR KAMALI, KALYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A.(MD)No.1526 of 2011, against the judgment and decree passed in M.A.C.O.P.No.324 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court, Dindigul.

(2.) The petitioners, who are the wife, minor children and mother of the (deceased) kannan, have preferred the claim in M.A.C.O.P.No.324 of 2009, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents, for the death of the said Kannan in a Motor Vehicle Accident. It was submitted that on 14.04.2009, at about 09.30 a.m., when the (deceased) Kannan was standing on the extreme left of the Dindigul-Nattham Road, at Reddiarpatti bus stand, the 1st respondent's mini lorry bearing registration No.TN-N4849, coming on the same road from east towards west and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the (deceased) Kannan and some others and caused the accident. As a result, the (deceased) Kannan received severe injuries and was immediately admitted at RajaRajeswari Hospital, Dindigul, but inspite of treatment, the (deceased) Kannan succumbed to his injuries. At the time of accident the (deceased) Kannan was working as a cook and earning Rs.7,000/- per month. In addition to this, he was earning a sum of Rs.250/- per day by working as an employee in hotel. Hence, the petitioners who are the dependents of the (deceased) Kannan have filed the above claim against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the mini-lorry bearing registration No.TN-N4849.

(3.) The 2nd respondent, in his counter has denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased. It was also submitted that as the 1st respondent's vehicle had been plied without getting a valid permit from the revenue authorities, the conditions laid down in the policy of insurance had been violated and as such the 2nd respondent cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.