M JANAKI Vs. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree, dated 29.06.2012, made in M.C.O.P.No.1835 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (IV Additional District Judge), Madurai.

(2.) The appellants herein are the claimants, who filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1835 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (IV Additional District Judge), Madurai, claiming a sum of Rs.3,06,200/-, as compensation, for the death of one Muthukrishnan, while he was driving a Motor Cycle, bearing Registration No.TN-10-A-8059, at about 30 p.m., on 24.08.2008 in Madurai Thevar Bridge, and was hit by unknown vehicle, which was coming in a rash and negligent manner and he sustained grievous injuries and died on 25.08.2008, due to the injuries, while he was admitted in the Appollo Speciality Hospital, Madurai.

(3.) The first respondent herein is the owner of the above vehicle and the said vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent herein and the insurance policy was in force, at the time of the accident. The first respondent / vehicle owner was set ex-parte before the Tribunal as well as the before this Court. The 2nd respondent alone was contesting the claim filed by the Legal Representatives of the deceased Muthukrishnan, under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act as amended by Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 by filing a counter statement and also examined its two officials, as witnesses. The 2nd claimant was examined as P.W.1, by filing proof affidavit, in which, he has stated that he came to know over cellphone that his father was hit by an unknown vehicle and the deceased father was working as salesman in egg shop and he has given a complaint, which was registered as Ex.P1 / FIR. P.W.1 was also admitted that he is not an eyewitness of the occurrence. P.W.2 was examined, as eyewitness to the occurrence, by filing proof affidavit, in which he has stated that he has seen one TATA Sumo Vehicle hit the motor cycle, bearing Registration No.TN- 10-A-8059 and fled away without stopping. In contra, the 2nd respondent Insurance Company has not chosen to produce any evidence to dispute the evidence of P.W.2.