(1.) The appellants/claimants have preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.278 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Karur.
(2.) The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioners, who are the wife, son and daughter of the (deceased) Chandrasekaran have filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.278 of 2004, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.60,00,000.00 from the respondents for the death of the said Chandrasekaran in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 15.11.2001, the (deceased) Chandrasekran had hired a tempo van bearing registration No.TN-47-T-5252 in order to facilitate his family and relatives to visit Karuppanna Sami temple at Vayirichettipalayam, Thuraiyur, on 16.11.2001. After they had visited the temple and were proceeding with their belongings, in the said tempo van towards Karur, on the Karur-Trichy Main road, and at about 5 p.m., when the van was near Selvanagar bus stop, the driver of the van drove the van at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and when the van was turned around a curved road, the driver lost control of the vehicle, due to which the van capsized. As a result, the said Chandrasekaran, Ramalingam, Rekha and Pappayi Ammal, Dhanam, Thayammal, Meenakshi @ Kalavathi, Senthil, Gandhimathi, Divya, Manickam and Parthasarathy who had also travelled in the van sustained injuries. After the accident, they were taken to Karur Government Hospital but the said Chandrasekaran, Ramalingam, Rekha and Pappayi Ammal died while being taken to the hospital and the others were admitted at Karur Government Hospital. Hence, the petitioners have claimed compensation of a sum of Rs.60,00,000.00 form the first, second and third respondents, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the tempo bearing registration No.TN-47-T-5252.
(3.) The third respondent in his counter has submitted that the (deceased) persons and the other injured persons had travelled as passengers in the second respondent's goods tempo van which is violative of the conditions laid down in Motor Vehicles Act and that of the insurance policy of vehicle. Further, it was stated that the petitioners should prove that the second respondent was the owner of the said van and that it had been insured with the third respondent and that the driver of the second respondent's van had a valid driving licence to drive the van at the time of accident. It was submitted that the second respondent had not intimated to them about the occurrence of accident and had not put in any claim with them. It was submitted that the second respondent had not contested the case and had colluded with the petitioners. The averments in the claim regarding age, income of the deceased and the claimants are the legal-heirs were also not admitted. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.