NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. KALIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal arises out of an order dated 23. 03. 2004 made in M. C. O. P. No. 146 of 2002, whereby the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional Sub Court), Gobichettipalayam, has allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,22,400/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand and four only) with interest at 9% p. a. , for the injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant, in a motor accident said to have taken place on 2. 1. 2002 at about 3. 30 a. m. , at Nanjai Puliampatti Main Road near Dasaprakash Garden at Nanjai Puliampatti Village in Gobichettipalayam Taluk.

(2.) ACCORDING to the first respondent/claimant, on 2. 1. 2002 at about 2. 00 a. m. , when he and his paid Servant Samraj were travelling along with the onion load in the Mini Auto bearing Registration No. TN-36-E-3170, belonging to the third respondent, which was insured with the appellant, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver/second respondent, the auto was capsized on the left side of the road into an agricultural field, as a result of which the first respondent/claimant sustained injuries.

(3.) A claim petition in M. C. O. P. No. 146 of 2002 was filed by the first respondent/claimant, claiming a compensation of Rs. 4,16,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Sixteen Thousand only), for the injuries sustained by him. The first respondent in the claim petition/second respondent herein did not file any counter. The second respondent in the claim petition/third respondent herein viz. , the owner of the vehicle filed a counter affidavit stating that the injured claimant himself has contributed to the accident, as he was travelling on the onion load, which was carried in the auto and hence no compensation is liable to be paid to him. The third respondent in the claim petition/appellant herein viz. , the insurance company filed a counter affidavit stating that the injured claimant was an gratuitous passenger and hence no compensation is liable to be paid. That apart, the appellant also disputed the age, occupation and monthly income of the injured claimant.