NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .M.A.(MD).No.1390 of 2009, against the judgment and decree passed in M.A.C.O.P.No.1206 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli.

(2.) THE petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the (deceased) Vellusami, have filed the claim in M.A.C.O.P.No.1206 of 2001, claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the respondents, for the death of the said Vellusami, in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 29.01.2001, the deceased Velusami had driven the lorry bearing registration No.TN-25/1006 from Kondayampettai to Trichy and carried out repairs in the lorry. At about 03.00 p.m., the other driver of the lorry namely Sekar took charge of the vehicle and when the deceased Velusami was removing the block fixed in front of the tyre of the lorry, the driver Sekar, suddenly started the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and drove the lorry from north towards south. Due to this, the (deceased) Velusami was trapped under the front tyre of the lorry and the tyre rolled over his hip. He sustained fracture injuries on his hip bone and sustained injuries in the vital parts of his body. He was immediately taken to Trichy Government Hospital and after receiving treatment was admitted at Panneer Nursing Home, as an inpatient. In spite of treatment, the deceased died on 21.01.2003. Initially, the injured Velusami had filed the claim against the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in the accident and subsequently after his death, the petitioners have been added as necessary parties and they have filed the said claim against the 1st and 2nd respondents who are the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-25/1006. At the time of his death, the deceased was aged 41 years and he was employed as a driver and earning Rs.6, 000/- per month.

(3.) THE Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Was the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent's lorry driver?; (2) Are the petitioners entitled to get compensation? If so, What is the quantum?