R RAJABUNNISSA Vs. M VINAYAGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/Petitioner, challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2016 passed in MACT.O.P.No.7090 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Small Causes Court, 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 15.09.2013, at about 12.10 hours, while the deceased was riding his two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-07-AP-6719 from CIT Nagar to Velacherry, in the North South direction, while proceeding in the Velacherry main road, opposite to Vikas Plaza, the 1st respondent lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-25-P-1246 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor cycle in which the deceased was proceeding, causing him fatal injuries, resulting in his death on the spot. The further case of the petitioners is that the said accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent vehicle driver only. The deceased was aged 56 years and was employed as a Sales Manager in a Private concern, earning a monthly salary of Rs.23,800/-. He was also entitled for annual benefits of Rs.54,000/-. The Petitioners who are the wife and children of the deceased were dependants on the income earned by the deceased. Due to his sudden demise, the petitioners have lost the bread winner of the family and his contribution to the house hold. Thus, the Petitioners sought for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

(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 alleged by the petitioners. As per the Motor Vehicle Inspector's (MVI) Report, both the vehicle did not suffer any damage. The same itself is sufficient to prove that there was no collision between the lorry and the motor cycle. The two wheeler driven by the deceased was not insured. The rider of the two wheeler also contributed to the accident. As the owner and insurer of the two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-7-AP-6719 being not impleaded as parties, the same is fatal to the petitioners' case. The age, avocation and income of the deceased as alleged in the petition is denied. The claim of the Petitioners is exorbitant. Thus, the 2nd respondent sought for dismissal of the Petition.