IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. Vs. RATHINAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., which figured as the third respondent in MCOP No.193/2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Erode is the appellant in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

(2.) RATHINAM , the first respondent herein/claimant made a claim in the above said MCOP for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/ - as compensation for the death of her son Raju on 24.01.2009 due to the injuries sustained by him in an accident alleged to have been taken place on 31.12.2008 at about 8.00 p.m on the Erode - Bhavani Road near the TELC church of B.P.Agraharam. The claim was made based on the contention that the deceased Raju met with an accident, while he was proceeding in the said road from north to south in his motorcycle bearing Regn. No.TN -37 AS -3501, the second respondent herein came in the opposite direction riding the motorcycle belonging to the third respondent herein (second respondent in the MCOP) bearing Regn. No.TN -33 R -2151 in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle, in which the deceased was proceeding; that the deceased Raju, who sustained head injuries in the accident was taken immediately to the District Headquarters Hospital, Erode and was given first aid treatment there; that since the injuries were severe, he was referred to the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore on 07.01.2009, where he took treatment as in -patient upto 24.01.2009 and that on 24.01.2009 he succumbed to the injuries. Claiming that the deceased was aged about 30 years and was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/ - per month as a Supervisor employed in Selvam Leather Factory at Erode, the first respondent herein/claimant made a claim against the appellant herein and the respondents 2 and 3 herein for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/ - as compensation on the premise that all the three were liable as insurer, rider and owner of the offending motorcycle, namely motorcycle bearing Regn. No.TN -33 R -2151 and that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the said motorcycle by the second respondent herein.

(3.) THE appellant herein, which figured as the third respondent in the MCOP, resisted the claim on the basis of the averments found in its counter statement denying the averments made in the claim petition regarding the place, date, time and the manner in which the accident took place and also contending that the second and third respondents herein (first and second respondents in the MCOP) colluded with the first respondent herein (claimant) and lodged a false complaint with Karungalpalayam Police with an ulterior motive of obtaining unlawful gain for the first respondent herein/claimant from the appellant herein/third respondent in the MCOP. It was also contended therein that, after a lapse of 25 days from the date of alleged accident, the respondents 1 to 3 herein (claimant and respondents 1 and 2 in the MCOP) cooked up a story and caused a false complaint to be lodged with Karungalpalayam police and that therefore, the claim made against the appellant herein/third respondent should be dismissed. Without prejudice to the generality of the above said contentions, the appellant herein/third respondent in the MCOP also contended that the alleged rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle bearing Regn. No.TN 33 R -2151 by the second respondent herein/first respondent in the MCOP should be substantiated by the first respondent herein/claimant, besides proving that the deceased was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident to drive the motorcycle. It was further contended that the claimant should prove the occupation, age and income of the deceased by producing documentary and oral evidence and that the amount claimed as compensation was highly excessive and exorbitant.