UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. JAYANTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No. 277 of 2010 on the file of the (Principal District Judge) at Namakkal.

(2.) For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal. The case of the petitioners is that on 12.04.2007, while the deceased S.Kasimani was riding his motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-28-B-0378 from Trichengode to Musalanikkenpalayam along with Puniagode as pillion rider, in Trichengode to Vellore road near Manianoor to Otharasu bus stand, a tempo van bearing Registration No.TN-28-2161 belonging to the 2nd respondent driven by the 1st respondent came at high speed and dashed against the two wheeler in which the deceased was travelling. Due to the impact, the deceased was thrown away from the bike and suffered serious injuries and subsequently died on the spot itself. It is averred in the Claim Petition that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent driver only. At the time of the accident, the deceased S.Kasimani was aged 37 years and he was carrying on business as provision shop owner and commission agent, earning Rs.13,000/- per month. Due to sudden death of S.Kasimani, the petitioners who are the wife, daughter and mother of the deceased lost the only breadwinner of the family. Thus, the petitioners seek a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents who are the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

(3.) On the other hand, opposing the claim of the petitioners, the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company contends that the claim of the petitioners about the nature of accident is not correct and the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased two wheeler rider and case has been registered in such a manner to help the dependants of the deceased. The accident occurred only due to the negligence of rider of the two wheeler who failed to notice the tempo van coming in the opposite direction and suddenly turned towards his right side, resulting in the accident. Thus, the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company seeks dismissal of the petition.