NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. MUNIANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in CMA(MD).No.1039 of 2005, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.37 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Sivagangai.

(2.) THE petitioners, who are the parents, wife and children of the (deceased) Balasubramanian, have filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.37 of 2001, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the respondents for the death of the said Balasubramanian in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 13.05.2000, when the deceased Balasubramanian along with his father, the 2nd petitioner and his grandson Prasanna were proceeding on the Sivagangai to Thondi road, after purchasing a some items for their home and at about 04.45 p.m., when they were nearing the Vinayagar Temple and proceeding from west towards east on the road, the 1st respondents Tractor bearing registration No.TN-63A-5178, coming from behind them, in the same direction and driven by the son of the 1st respondent, is the 3rd respondent, at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased Balasubramanian and caused the accident. Due to the accident, the (deceased) Balasubramanian sustained severe injuries and was initially admitted at Government Hospital, Sivagangai and later on was admitted at Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital. But inspite of medical treatment, the (deceased) Balasubramanian succumbed to his injuries on 22.08.2001. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 45 years and was a milk vendor earning Rs.3,000/- per month. As the 1st respondent, the owner of the Tractor had died during the pendancy of the case, the petitioners, who are the dependents on the income of the deceased have filed the claim as against the 2nd and 3rd respondents who are the insurer of the 1st respondents Tractor and the son of the 1st respondent respectively.

(3.) THE Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Are the petitioners entitled to get compensation from the respondents?; (2) If so, what is the quantum of compensation they are entitled to get?.