HEMALATHA Vs. S CHANDRASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs. 13,48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the death of Selva in a road traffic accident on 19.4.2002, Claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement. Brief facts are that on 19.4.2002 at about 3.30 P.M., deceased Selva was driving his Car bearing Registration No. TN-27 D 4966 from Coimbatore to Salem along with PW. 2-Ramadoss. When he was nearing Teen Engineering Works, Perumanallur, the lorry bearing Registration No. TN-37 Z 0829, belonging to the 1st Respondent and insured with the 2nd Respondent Insurance Company driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction, dashed against the Car. Due to the impact, Selva sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot and the car was damaged. At the time of accident, deceased Selva was aged 45 years and was doing Textile business and was earning Rs. 75,000/- per month. Regarding the accident, a Criminal Case was registered against the lorry driver in Crime No. 81 of 2002 under Sections 279 and 304(A) I.R.C. of Perumanallur Police Station. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, Claimants who are wife and sons of deceased Selva have filed the Claim Petition claiming compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/-.

(2.) Resisting the Claim Petition, 2nd Respondent-Insurance Company filed counter contending that the accident occurred only due to the reckless act of the deceased and the 2nd Respondent Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 2nd Respondent-Insurance Company denied the age, monthly income of deceased and that the compensation claimed is highly excessive.

(3.) Before the Tribunal, 1st Claimant-Hemalatha examined herself as P.W. 1. Eye-witness-Ramadoss was examined as P.W. 2. Surveyor of 2nd Respondent Insurance Company, viz., D. Ravichandran was examined as P.W. 3 One Ravi, Auditor of the deceased was examined as P.W. 4. Exs. A1 to A38 were marked on the side of Claimants. On the side of 2nd Respondent Insurance Company, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.