TAMILNADU STATE Vs. SAROJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In an accident, which occurred on 04.08.2004, one Mr.Raghu, died. Legal representatives, viz., wife, two major daughters, one major son and minor daughter of the deceased and parents aged about 60 and 58 respectively, filed MCOP No.728 of 2005 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The police jeep bearing Regn.No.TN04G0220, involved in the accident, is owned by the Government and stood in the name of the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Chennai. He is the 2nd respondent in the claim petition. A case in Cr.No.554/04 has been registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC on the file of the Jolarpettai Police Station, against the driver of the police jeep.

(2.) Before the claims tribunal, in the counter affidavit, the appellants have submitted that the vehicle was driven in a cautious manner, following the rules and regulations, and it was the deceased, who invited the accident by his negligence. Hence, they denied negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep and their consequential liability, to pay compensation. Without prejudice to the above, they disputed the age, income and the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads.

(3.) Before the claims tribunal, wife of the deceased examined herself as PW1 and reiterated the manner of accident. She has not witnessed the accident. PW2, is stated to be the eye-witness. Ex.P1 dated 04.08.2004, FIR, Ex.P2 dated 04.08.2004, Postmortem Report, Ex.P3, dated 04.08.2000, copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.214 of 2004, Ex.P4, dated 06.08.2004, Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, Ex.P5, Identity card of the claimant, Ex.P6, dated 07.09.2004, Death certificate of Raghu and Ex.P7, dated 10.09.2004, Legal heir certificate, have been marked on the side of the respondents/claimants. RW1, driver of the jeep, has adduced evidence disputing the manner of accident. No document has been filed on behalf of the appellants.