UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PONNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 25. 04. 2007 made in MCOP No. 337 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam.

(2.) BACKGROUND facts in a nutshell are as follows:-On 14. 04. 2006 at about 12. 30 midnight, the deceased Karuppanna Gounder, along with one Marappan, were proceeding by a bullock cart in the Gobi to Sathi Road. When they were nearing Moolavaikkal Gurukulam School, i. e. near the house of one Narayanaswamy Gounder from east to west direction, a lorry bearing Registration No. TNQ 3326 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed at the backside of the bullock cart. Due to the accident both the deceased as well as the other person were thrown out from the bullock cart and the left front wheel of the lorry ran over on the head of the deceased and the deceased died on the spot. The The claimants are the wife, daughter and son of the deceased. They claimed a compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The lorry was insured with the appellant / Insurance Company, who resisted the claim. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: a) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver or not? b) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation or not? If so, what is the amount payable and from whom? after considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and awarded a compensation of Rs. 7,14,000/- with interest at 7. 5% p. a. from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the order, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the Insurance Company questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and stated that it is excessive and exorbitant, without basis and justification, and that therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside.