UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. S KARPAGAVALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts leading to the appeal are as follows: On 31. 12. 2003, about 4. 30 a. m. , when the deceased along with his father and few others was proceeding from Tuticorin to Tiruchendur to workship Lord Murugan at Tiruchendur by Padayatra, a Bajaj M-80, bearing Registration No. TN04 H 5821, owned by the fourth respondent herein and insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, driven by one Anand @ Anandavel along with one Saravanan, pillion ridder, came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and knocked down the deceased, Suburaj. He sustained grievous injuries. A complaint was lodged before Tuticorin South Police Station by the father of the deceased and a case in Cr. No. 883 of 2003 under Section 279, 337 and 304 (A) I. P. C. , was also lodged. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to a private hospital at Muthiahpuram, where first aid treatment was given and thereafter, he was referred and treated in Government Medical College Hospital, Tuticorin. Despite the treatment, he died on the very same day. As per the claim petition, at the time of accident, the first respondent was aged about 21 years, and the marriage between the first respondent and the deceased was held 1 1/2 years back. At the time of accident, the second respondent in the appeal was 21 days baby. The father of the deceased unable to bear the sudden demise of his son, consumed poison and died on 01. 01. 2004 According to the claimants, the deceased was an agricultural coolie, aged about 28 years and earned Rs. 3,000/- per month. They made a claim for compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/ -.

(2.) THE fourth respondent-owner of the vehicle resisted the claim petition and submitted that on the date of accident, when the Bajaj M-80 was driven slowely on the top of the bridge, the deceased along with few others was walking in the middle of the road and on seeing them, the rider of another vehicle sounded horn. The deceased panicked and suddenly crossed the road from left to right. Though the rider of Bajaj M-80 applied brake to avoid the accident, the deceased came on his own and dashed against the vehicle and sustained injuries. The fourth respondent further submitted that the accident occurred only due to the negligence and the carelessness of the deceased. He also submitted that at the relevant point of time, the driver had valid driving licence and since his vehicle was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, the Insurance Company alone is liable to pay compensation.

(3.) THE appellant-Insurance Company submitted that on the date of accident, the rider of the motorcycle did not have a valid driving licence to drive Bajaj M-80 and the owner of the vehicle had violated the policy condition and therefore, the Company is not liable to pay compensation.