ANITHA AND ORS. Vs. KENNDEY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal representatives of the deceased/claimants are the appellants herein and aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition, vide judgment and decree dated 29.02.2012 in MCOP No.26/2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Court/Fast Track Court, Vellore, had filed this appeal.

(2.) The deceased [late] Chakravarthy was aged about 41 years and according to the appellants/claimants, he was working as the Sub-Inspector of Police in Tamil Nadu Police Service and was earning a sum of Rs. 10000.00 per month. The appellants would further aver that on 05.09.2004 at about 08.45 a.m., he was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-74-D-7059 from Katpadi to Tiruvalam on the extreme side of Katpadi to Chennai road following traffic rules and regulations and at that time, a Tata Sumo Car bearing Registration No.TN-23-K-1555, owned by the 1st respondent was driven in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human lives and without following the traffic rules, proceeded in a wrong way and dashed against the said two-wheeler and as a consequence, the rider of the motorcycle was thrown out and sustained grievous injuries and he was immediately rushed to the Christian Medical College Hospital, at Vellore, for treatment and without responding to the treatment, he died on 06.09.2004. The appellants/claimants would further aver that the deceased was on the verge of promotion to the Inspector of Police and was earning not less than Rs. 12,000.00 per month and on account of his sudden and tragic demise, the family has been left in lurch and therefore, claimed a lump sum compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs from the respondents.

(3.) The 1st respondent - owner of the Car remained ex parte and the insurer of the vehicle, viz., the 2nd respondent, had filed their counter, denying the averments made in the claim petition and would state that the Tata Sumo Car, owned by the 1st respondent, was not at all involved in the accident and the rider of the motorcycle/deceased, on his own volition, fallen down while driving the vehicle and sustained grievous injuries and the FIR with regard to the accident given by one Vedagiri was a false and concocted complaint, to enable the claimants to claim compensation and since the rider of the motorcycle himself, has contributed to the accident, prayed for exoneration and dismissal of the claim petition.