LAWS(MAD)-2017-3-314

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD , SALEM Vs. UTHRA

Decided On March 16, 2017
New India Assurance Co Ltd , Salem Appellant
V/S
Uthra Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.Nos.68 of 2010 and 1566 of 2009, dated 04.09.2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IInd Additional District Judge) at Salem District, New India Assurance Company Limited, has preferred the present appeals.

(2.) Facts as deduced from the material on record and the impugned common judgment are that on 7.2.2009, Sambasivam, Personal Assistant of M/s.E.W.P. Associates, 7th respondent herein and Sankaramoorthy, Manager of the said Company, were travelling in TATA Indica car, bearing Registration No.TN 30 AD 6552, belonging to the 9th respondent herein and insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, driven by one Subramani, an employee of M/s.E.W.P. Associates. When the car was proceeding on Kollam-Alapulza road, in front of M.S.M. College in Ghayankullam area, in Kerala State, driver of the car, drove the same, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the left side of a bus, bearing Registration No.KL-15/7038. Sankaramoorthy, Sambasivam and the driver of the car died on the spot. In this regard, a case in Cr.No.133 of 2009, under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC, has been registered against the driver of the Car, on the file of Ghayamkullam Police Station. For the death of both the deceased Sambasivam and Sankaramoorthy, their legal representatives filed separate claim petitions, claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000.00 each, under various heads.

(3.) Before the claims tribunal, New India Assurance Company Limited, Salem, insurer of TATA Indica car, bearing Registration No.TN 30 AD 6552, filed separate counter affidavits and denied the manner of accident. They further submitted that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No.KL-15/7038 and therefore, owner and insurer of the bus are necessary parties to the proceedings. They disputed the manner of accident and liability. Without prejudice to the above, they disputed the age, avocation, income of the deceased and the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads.