LAWS(MAD)-2014-4-174

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SELVI

Decided On April 03, 2014
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Appellant
V/S
SELVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the finding, fastening liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs.2,06,480/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim petition, till the date of realisation, the United India Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

(2.) According to the respondents, that on 02.11.2010, about 8.00 A.M., the respondent and one Chinnalagi, were standing at Puzhuthikarai bus stop, along with groundnut bags. At that time, a Tata ACE Mini Door Auto, bearing Registration No.TN 24 C 1267, came there. They fixed a fare. Chinnalagi boarded the vehicle. Thereafter, the respondent/claimant loaded the groundnut bags in the auto. When she attempted to step in, the driver of the Mini Door Auto started the vehicle at a greet speed. Due to which, she fell down and sustained injuries in right thigh back, spinal cord, hip, stomach, abdomen, head, chest, right hand and leg. Immediately, she was admitted in Government Hospital, Dharmapuri and took treatment as inpatient between 21.11.2010 and 11.12.2010. Since discharge, she has taken treatment in private hospital and spent considerable amount. A case in Cr.No.473 of 2010 has been registered against the driver of the TATA ACE Mini Door Auto, bearing Registration No.TN 24 C 1267, insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, on the file of Krishnapuram Police Station, for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. She claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

(3.) The appellant-Insurance Company opposed the claim petition, contending inter alia that the accident did not occur, as averred. Negligence of the driver of TATA ACE Mini Door Auto, has been denied. According to the Company, the respondent/claimant travelled in the vehicle, only as a gratuitous passenger and that the vehicle is a transport goods vehicle. Non-possession of the driving licence was also one of the objections. Without prejudice to the above, they disputed the nature of injuries sustained by her, age, avocation, income of the respondent/claimant and the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads.