V. AMUDHA Vs. E. BALU AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant is the Petitioner/Claimant and fled the above appeal challenging the order and decree dated 06.08.2012 made in M.C.O.P. No. 212 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge-II, Poonamallee.

(2.) For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal. It is a case of injury. The averments in the claim petition filed by the Petitioner-V.Amudha is that on 14.12.2007 at about 10:00 a.m., as the Petitioner was travelling in a Motor cycle bearing Reg. No. TN-20-AP-1458 as pillion rider in Poonamallee High Road, Chennai, the lorry bearing Reg. No. TN-33-L-2199 came at high speed, dashed on the two wheeler, causing grievous injuries to the Petitioner. The accident occurred only due to negligence of the Lorry driver. The said lorry belonged to the 1st respondent and the same was insured with the 2nd respondent. The Petitioner was aged 19 years and she was student at that time. The Petitioner suffered serious injuries on the clavicle, severe head injury and other serious multiple injuries all over the body. Due to the injuries suffered, her future is affected. She is unable to carry on her education. Thus, the Petitioner sought for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents.

(3.) On the other hand, opposing the claim of the Petitioner, by filing counter, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company contends that the accident did not occur in the manner alleged by the Petitioner. The claim of the Petitioner about her age and injury suffered by her is denied. The 1st respondent Lorry was proceeding at normal speed and while going near Pallikuppam, the two wheeler in which the Petitioner was travelling came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the culvert as a result of which, the Petitioner was thrown out and suffered injuries. The 1st respondent Lorry never met with any accident on that date, but a false case has been registered against the driver of the 1st respondent lorry. The respondents are not liable to pay any compensation.