THE MANAGER RELIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. THAHIRBANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company calling in question the correctness of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanathapuram, in M.C.O.P.No.28 of 2011.

(2.) The relevant facts are that on 14th September 2009, at about 6.00 a.m, the deceased, who was working with one of the local Colleges at Adirampattinam, as a Professor in Chemistry was proceeding on his two wheeler when the offending vehicle, a Tipper lorry (earth moving vehicle) caused the fatal accident, resulting in instantaneous death of the deceased. The deceased was in prime of his life as by the time of his premature death he was of 46 years age. His wife and his three children of whom two are of young age and the mother of the deceased are the claimants and they sought for payment of compensation of Rupees One Crore. In support of their claim, PW 1 to PW 3 were examined and the documents Exs.P1 to 18 were also exhibited. The first respondent in the M.C.O.P was the owner of the offending vehicle, which is insured with the second respondent. It is the second respondent who has contested the M.C.O.P but no documentary evidence has been let in on behalf of the said Insurance Company. It is also relevant to notice that none has been examined as witness on behalf of the second respondent Company either.

(3.) PW.2 was an eye -witness to the entire accident. He was driving another car at that time and has witnessed the rash and negligent manner in which, the offending vehicle - Tipper lorry was driven by its driver. Incidentally, PW2 is the one who lodged the complaint with the nearest police station bringing to their notice about the accident that had taken place. PW.2 has been extensively cross -examined, but, however nothing has been extracted from him to contradict his presence at that hour on the road. This apart, when the police after investigation laid the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for causing the death of the deceased, PW.2 herein was cited as the de -facto complainant even in the criminal case. Thus, PW.2 was not only a neutral individual but also present at the time of the accident occurred. There is no contra evidence on record to doubt his presence at the place where accident occurred.