K. ARUN NAGARAJ Vs. P.BHARATHIRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants in M.C.O.P.No.43 of 2017 on the file of MACT, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Periyakulam, Theni, have preferred this appeal against the dismissal of their claim petition.

(2.) The case of the appellants before the MCOP Claim Tribunal: The deceased Geetha was the wife of the first appellant and the mother of the second appellant. She was working as Head Constable in the All Women Police Station, Andipatti. On 23/1/2012 on 08.30 a.m, when she was returning to her house after her role call duty by riding a TVS XL Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-57-AD-0119, first respondent drove Auto bearing Reg.No.TN-60-F-8325 belong to the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased's two wheeler near Thevar statue, Gandamanur Junction in the Gandamanur Vaigaidam Main Road. In result, she sustained grievous injurious on her head, both eyes, both legs and abrasion injury all over the body. Immediately, she was taken to the Government Medical College Hospital, Theni, and subsequently, she was referred to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. Thereafter, she was admitted in Madurai Appollo Hospital, on 3/1/2012 and treated as inpatient till 6/1/2012. In spite of treatment, she died on 6/1/2012. Regarding the above said occurrence, the Kanavilakku Police Officers initially registered a case against the first respondent in Crime No.4 of 2012 for the offences under Ss. 279 & 337 of IPC and thereafter, it was altered into Sec. 304(A) IPC against the second respondent and after completion of investigation, final report was filed against the first respondent. Therefore, the claimants being dependents of the deceased, have filed the claim petition in the above MCOP, claiming compensation of Rs.70.00 lakhs.

(3.) The third respondent/Insurance Company filed counter and disputed the liability as well as the negligence on the part of the first respondent. They further stated that due to the negligence of the deceased, the accident was happened. The driver of the second respondent vehicle was not responsible for the accident. Further, they took the stand that the Auto Driver was not having valid driving licence, Fitness Certificate and permit and so, there was a violation of policy. In addition to that, the deceased has driven the vehicle without having valid licence and without even wearing the helmet. Hence, they seek exoneration of liability. Even otherwise, the amount of compensation claimed in the claim petition is excessive.