V ANJALAI Vs. M THANGAMARIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2017 made in MCOP.No.2089 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.

(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 petitioner is that on 04.04.2014 while the deceased V.Pazhani @ Pazhanivel was riding motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TN-31-AA-9831 in the NaduVeerapattu to Cuddalore Road, at about 8 a.m., while going near V.Kattupalayam, the 1st respondent vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-60-X-1069 came at high speed in the opposite direction, dashed against the above said two wheeler, causing him fatal injuries, resulting in his death subsequently in the hospital. According to the Petitioners, the accident occurred only due to negligence of the 1st respondent's Mini Lorry driver. The deceased was aged 36 years and by carrying on cashewnut vending business was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. The Petitioner, who is the motor of the deceased was depending on his earning. Thus the Petitioner sought for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- 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 Petitioner, by filing counter, the 2nd respondent-Insurance company contends that the accident does not occur in the manner alleged by the Petitioner. The negligence of the deceased alone caused the accident. The deceased was not holding valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The brother of the deceased filed MCOP.No.1552 of 2015 seeking compensation and this petitioner has been impleaded as 3rd respondent in the said case. This is the 2nd claim . Therefore, the petition is not maintainable. The accident occurred only due to negligence of the deceased. The claim of the Petitioner about the age, avocation and income of the deceased is denied. The claim of the Petitioner is exorbitant. The petition is liable to be dismissed.