MAHESWARI Vs. SUPREME INDIA ROADLINES, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.8,56,362/- awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.512 of 2004 (28.8.2008) on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Tindivanam, the Claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement.

(2.) Brief facts are that on 26.6.2003 at about 11.15 A.M., deceased Manohar was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing registration No.PYR 2293 in Pondy-Tindivanam Road. When he was nearing Andiyarpalayam, the lorry bearing registration No.TN-04 H 8524, belonging to the 1st Respondent coming from opposite direction after giving way to Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Bus which was coming from its behind, suddenly came right and dashed against the motorcycle as well as the Maruthi car and both motorcycle and Maruthi car were dragged to a distance of 100 feet and fell in to a pit. In the accident, Manohar and the occupants of Maruthi car sustained grievous injuries. After the accident, Manohar was admitted in Jipmer hospital, Pondicherry where he had taken treatment for two days. Thereafter, Manohar was admitted in Apollo Hospital, Chennai and succumbed to the injuries on 29.6.2003. Regarding the accident, a criminal case in Crime No.432 of 2003 under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) I.P.C. on the file of Kiliyanur Police Station was registered against the lorry driver. At the time of accident, deceased was working as Head Constable in Kiliyanur Police Station and was earning Rs.14,000/- per month. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry, the Claimants who are wife, sons and mother of the deceased have filed the Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

(3.) Resisting the Claim Petition, 2nd Respondent-Insurance Company has filed counter stating that the lorry bearing registration No.TN-04 H 8524 was not involved in the accident and that 2nd Respondent-Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the Claimants. 2nd Respondent-Insurance Company also denied age, occupation, monthly income of the deceased and that the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive.