BRANCH MANAGER, NEW ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SURULI JAKKAIYAN; GANDHI; POTHUMANI; CHINNATHAYEE; JANAB M ABDUL KADHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/2nd respondent, has preferred the present appeal in CMA(MD).No.403 of 2012, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.337 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul.

(2.) The petitioners, who are the brothers and sisters of the (deceased) Marimuthu, have filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.337 of 2010, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents for the death of the said Marimuthu in a Motor Vehicle Accident. It was submitted that on 18.01.2010, at about 05.00 p.m., when the (deceased) Marimuthu was travelling as a passenger in the 1st respondent's bus bearing registration No.TN-60C-3344 and when the bus was proceeding on the Uthamapalayam to Kambam Main Road from the north to south and nearing Muneeswaran Temple, the driver of the bus drove the bus at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied brakes due to which the (deceased) Marimuthu was thrown out of the front entrance of the bus, onto the road. As a result, the (deceased) Marimuthu sustained injuries and other parts of his body and was immediately admitted at Theni Government Hospital, but inspite of treatment, the (deceased) Marimuthu succumbed to his injuries on 22.01.2010. At the time of accident, the (deceased) was aged 33 years and was working as an Agricultural Coolie and earning Rs.4.500/- per month. Hence, the petitioners have filed the claim against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the bus bearing registration No.TN-60C-3344.

(3.) The 2nd respondent, in his counter has submitted that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the (deceased) Marimuthu, as he had travelled on the footstep at the front entrance of the bus and had lost his balance and fallen down and as such the accident had not been caused due to any negligence on the part of the 1st respondent's vehicle driver. The averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased was also not admitted.