R MUNIA PILLAI Vs. MEENAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this appeal is the first respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 64 of 1986 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court). Srivilliputhur. Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the claimants and the fourth respondent herein was the second respondent in the above claim proceedings before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, in this judgment, the parties are referred to in their rank in which they were described in the proceedings before the Tribunal.

(2.) ONE Mahalingam, husband of the first claimant and father of claimants 2 and 3 died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 22.11.1985 at a place called Sulakkarai which is at Madurai Virudhunagar road before mid -night. The deceased was going in his motorcycle on that day with a pillion on his back, who is examined as P.W.2, from north to south. At that time, the lorry bearing No. KRE 1446 owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and in that process went to the wrong side of the road and hit against the deceased. As a result of the impact, the deceased sustained injuries and he ultimately died. On this basis, a claim petition was filed claiming a compensation of Rs.3,16,000. Opposing this claim petition, the respondents before the Tribunal contended that the vehicle belonging to the first respondent was driven observing the rules of the road and the accident was solely due to the negligent act on the part of the deceased himself. The second respondent took the defence that their liability under the policy of insurance is limited to Rs.1,50,000.

(3.) AS far as the accident is concerned, there is the evidence of eye -witnesses, viz., P.W.2 who travelled with the deceased as a pillion in the motor -cycle on the date of the accident. The driver of the first respondent -s vehicle was also prosecuted in a court of law for an of fence under Section 304 -A of the Indian Penal Code and he was found guilty and convicted as well. Ex.A -5 is the certified copy of the judgment in that case. As against the evidence of P.W.2 no contra evidence, either oral or documentary, had been let in on the side of the respondents to disprove the version of the eye -witnesses examined on the side of the claimants. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal -s finding on the question of negligence and answered against the first respondent is supported by legal evidence and legal inferences. I am of the view that no exception could be taken to such a finding of negligence and therefore, that finding is sustained.