BRANCH MANAGER, PUDUKOTTAI Vs. RAJAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A.(MD).No.728 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court, Pudukottai., for claiming compensation a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- from the respondents, for the death of the said Kathiresan, in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that the deceased was working as the Tahsildar of the Pudukottai Taluk Headquarters Office and was earning Rs.9,522/- per month. On 19.07.1998, at about 10.00 p.m., when the deceased after completing his inspection work, was proceeding to his house on a TVS 50 moped and was nearing the 1st gate of the Semmapadai ground, Pudukottai, the 1st respondent's scooter bearing registration No.TN-55A-7234 coming in the opposite direction and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the moped and caused the accident. The (deceased) Kathiresan fell down on the ground and sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted in the Government Hospital but inspite of treatment, he died the next day. It was submitted that the rider of the scooter had admitted his guilt before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pudukottai and paid the fine. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 50 years. Hence, the petitioners who are the dependants on the income of the deceased Kathiresan have filed the claim against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the scooter bearing registration No.TN-55A-7234.

(2.) THE 2nd respondent, in his counter has submitted that the (deceased) Kathiresan, had travelled as a pillion rider in the TVS-50 moped ridden by Kanakarathinam and that while they were proceeding on the moped, the (deceased) Kathiresan, who had hypertension, fell down from the back of moped and sustained head injuries. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. It was submitted that the F.I.R, charge sheet and motor vehicle Inspector's report had all been prepared belatedly.

(3.) ON the petitioners side, two witnesses were examined and nine documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R dated 20.07.1998; Ex.P2-copy of post mortem report dated 21.07.1998; Ex.P3-Motor Vehicle Inspector's report dated 19.07.1998; Ex.P4-copy of observation mahazar dated 20.07.1998; Ex.P5-copy of charge sheet dated 16.11.1998; Ex.P6-copy of Criminal Court judgment made in C.C.No.870 of 1998; Ex.P7-salary certificate of deceased Kathiresan dated 31.12.1998; Ex.P8-legal heir certificate dated 28.07.1998; Ex.P9-Extract of attendance register pertaining to deceased Kathiresan. On the respondents side, one witnesses was examined and no document was marked.