NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. DHANALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant/Insurance Company has filed C.M.A.No.3458 of 2013, challenging the order and decree dated 28.08.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.4158 of 2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief ourt of Small Causes, Chennai. Cross Objectors/claimants filed Cross.Obj.No.9 of 2014 seeking enhancement of the compensation.

(2.) For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal. It is a fatal case. The case of the Petitioners is that on 23.09.2006 while the deceased Ravishankar was riding motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TN-32-A-7363 from North to South in Rajaji salai at about 14.30 hours, while taking U turn, opposite to George Town court, Chennai, a tempo traveler bearing Reg.No.TN-22-AP-5419 came in the opposite direction, dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased, causing him fatal injuries resulting in his death subsequently. The accident occurred due to negligence of the 1st respondent vehicle driver only. The deceased was aged 29 years and he was a Veda Pundit, doing Purohitham. The Petitioners who are the Parents of the deceased claimed that their deceased son was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Thus, they sought for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents who are the owner and insurer of the vehicle.

(3.) On the other hand, opposing the claim of the Petitioners, by filing counter, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company contends that the Petitioners have to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased and they are dependant on him for their maintenance. The 2nd respondent does not admit the claim of the Petitioners that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-22-AP-5419 was insured with them. The claim of the Petitioners that the accident took place on 23.09.2006 at 14.30 hours is disputed. The accident does not occur in the manner alleged by the Petitioners. It was only due to violation of Traffic Rules by the deceased, the accident occurred. The claim of the Petitioners about the age, avocation and income of the deceased is denied. The claim of the Petitioner is very exorbitant. The 2nd respondent sought for dismissal of the Petition.