LAWS(MAD)-2023-12-72

RANI NAGALAKSHMI Vs. SRINIVASAN

Decided On December 15, 2023
Rani Nagalakshmi Appellant
V/S
SRINIVASAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Insurance Company and the Claimants are on Appeal challenging the Award made in M.C.O.P. No.1415 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Salem granting a sum of Rs.1,31,13,040.00 as Compensation for the death of one Dr. V. Elangovan in a Motor accident that took place on 12/2/2016.

(2.) According to the Claimants, who are the Wife, Daughter and Mother of the deceased, while the deceased was riding his Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-30-6521, at about 21.30 Hours near Gandhi Stadium on the extreme left side of the road, the First Respondent, who was also riding the Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-54-E-6045 came in the opposite direction and hit against the Motorcycle that the deceased was riding. As a result of the impact, the deceased was thrown off the vehicle and he sustained multiple fractures and head injuries. As a result of the injuries suffered, the said Dr. Elangovan died on the spot. The Claimants claimed that the negligence on the part of the rider of the Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-54-E-6045 was the sole cause of the accident and attempted to justify the quantum by contending that Dr. Elangovan was a Professor and Head of the Department of Microbiology in the Government Rajaji Medical College Hospital, Salem and was drawing a Salary of Rs.1,24,885.00 per month apart from doing Private practice and owning a Medical Lab.

(3.) The Insurance Company resisted the claim contending that the accident did not occur in the manner suggested by the Claimants. According to the Insurance Company, the road in which Dr. Elangovan was riding was a oneway and he was on the wrong side of the road. The fact that Dr. Elangovan had gone on a one-way would by itself show that the accident occurred due to his negligence and not due to the negligence of the rider of the Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-54-E-6045. The quantum of Compensation claimed was termed as excessive and the Claimants were put to strict proof of the age and income particulars as pleaded by them.