K LALITHA MAHESWARI Vs. J MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants, challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.450 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court-III, Dharapuram.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their litigative status before the Tribunal. The case of the Petitioners is that on 15.04.2003, at about 1.10 a.m., when the deceased Vijay Mohan was travelling with others as a passenger in a Jeep bearing Reg.No.TN-01-J-0727 from Udumalpet to Kumuli, near the place called A Pirivu, Vathlagundu Main Road, the van bearing Reg.No.TN-57-D-4431, came in the opposite direction at high speed, dashed against the jeep in which the deceased was travelling, causing him fatal injuries, resulting in his death subsequently. At that time, the deceased was aged 36 years and was employed as a General Manager in a Private Establishment for a salary of Rs.11,000/- per month. The Petitioners who are the wife, son and mother of the deceased states that they were dependants on the income of the deceased and due to sudden demise, they lost the only bread winner of the family. Hence, the Petitioners seek a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- 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. The driver of the jeep in which the deceased was travelling was not having valid driving licence and only due to rash and negligent driving of the said jeep driver, the accident occurred. The claim of the Petitioners regarding the avocation, income and age of the deceased is denied. As the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the jeep in which the deceased was travelling, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation. The amount claimed by the Petitioners is exorbitant. Thus, the respondents sought for dismissal of the Petition.