UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. DHANALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNITED India Insurance Company, Trichy, third respondent before the Tribunal is the appellant in this appeal. Petitioners 1 to 4 are respondents 1 to 4 in this appeal. Nizam Tobacco Company-first respondent before the Tribunal is the fifth respondent herein S. Kumarasamy-sixth respondent before the Tribunal is the sixth respondent herein. This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 10-9-1981 in M.A.C.O.P. No. 349 of 1980 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madurai, in a petition filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein for the death of the deceased Raju in a motor vehicle accident on 8-4-1980 at about S.30 p.m.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners/respondents 1 to 4 herein before the Tribunal is as follows: The first respondent herein is the widow and the second respondent herein is the minor child of the deceased Raju. Respondents 3 and 4 herein are the parents of the deceased. The deceased Raju was doing business and was a sale agent for the chewing tobacco of the fifth respondent's company at Pudukottai in Vadipatti and Alanganallur area. He was aged 34 years at the time of his death in the accident. The deceased was earning Rs. 500/- per month from his grocery shop at Vadipatti and Anr. sum of Rs. 500/- as a sale agent on commission basis for Nizam Tobacco--his monthly earning being Rs. 1,000/-. On 8-4-1980 at about 5-30 p m., the deceased was going in the van bearing registration No. MDA 8051 belonging to the fifth respondent herein and insured with the sixth respondent herein as, the sale agent for distribution of chewing tobacco in Vadipatti and Alanganallur area. They were proceeding in Senthamangalam--Pentbukampatti Road at about 5-30 p.m., and due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by the sixth respondent, the accident occurred in which the deceased died. The deceased was the sole earning member of his family. On the death, the petitioners are put to great suffering. At the time of his death, the first respondent herein was pregnant and the second respondent herein was born on 2-7-1980 and he is only aged about one year and 3 months at the time of filing the claim petition before the Tribunal. The fourth respondent herein who is the father of the deceased has an amputated leg and is lame. On the death of the deceased, the respondents 1 to 4 herein are put to very great hardship. Hence they claim a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

(3.) THE third respondent-appellant herein in its counter statement before the Tribunal, inter alia, contended as follows: The manner of accident as stated in the claim petition is not correct. The accident was not due to any rash or negligent driving of the vehicle MDA 8051 belonging to the fifth respondent herein and driven by the sixth respondent herein and insured with the appellant herein. The age, occupation and the monthly income of the deceased Raju as stated in the claim petition is not admitted. The other particulars regarding the age of respondents 1 to 4 herein and that the deceased was the only earning member of the family are all denied. The claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation is very high. The liability of the appellant herein with whom the goods vehicle belonging to the fifth respondent herein is insured is only upto the limit of Rs. 10,000/-. The claim petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed with costs.