V ALAMELU Vs. V RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/Petitioner, challenging the judgment and decree ated 22.08.2013 passed in M.C.O.P.No.2816 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court at Chennai.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their litigative status before the Tribunal. It is a fatal case. The case of the Petitioners is that on 28.06.2010 at about 22.45 hours, as the deceased R.Vijayan was proceeding in the E.C.R.Road, from Thiruvanmiyur and as he was crossing the RTO Office Signal towards South in his Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.TN-67-J-9067, an Indica Car bearing Reg.No.TN-21-AW-4857 came at high speed from Kottivakkam and without noticing the oncoming traffic on the main road, took a right turn in the RTO Office signal, dashed against the two wheeler in which the deceased was going, causing him fatal injuries resulting in his death. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the 1st respondent owned vehicle driver and the said vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent. The deceased was aged 35 years and was employed as Waiter in a Private Food Court, earning Rs.6000/- per month. The Petitioners who are the wife, children and parents of the deceased were depending on the earning of the deceased. Thus, the Petitioners are denied his love and affection and the monthly contribution to the family run by the deceased R.Vijayan. Thus, the Petitioners sought for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents who are the owner and insurer of the said Indica Car.

(3.) On the other hand, opposing the claim of the Petitioners, by filing counter, the 2nd respondent-Insurance company contends that the accident did not occur in the manner as alleged by the Petitioners. As the insured and the insurer of the two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-67-J-9067 is not added as parties, the petition is to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. The age, avocation and income of the deceased as stated in the petition, is denied. The accident occurred only due to negligence of the deceased and he contributed to the accident. As such, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation. Thus, the 2nd respondent sought for dismissal of the Petition.