UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. MARIYAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/claimant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.395 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub-Judge, Krishnagiri.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal. The case of the petitioner/claimant is that on 13.07.2003 at about 16.30 hours, while the petitioner/claimant was walking near Adhiyamankottai Bus stop, a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-29-P-0033 belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent came at high speed, dashed against the petitioner/claimant, causing him multiple fracture and grievous injuries all over the body. The accident occurred only due to the negligence of the two wheeler driver. The petitioner/claimant underwent treatment as inpatient in Government Hospital, Dharmapuri. The petitioner/claimant suffered partial permanent disability. Due to the injury suffered by the petitioner/claimant he was not in a position to carry on his work as mason, resulting in loss of income to him. Thus, the petitioner/claimant seeks a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents.

(3.) On the other hand, opposing the claim of the petitioner/claimant, by filing counter, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company contends that the accident did not occur in the manner alleged by the petitioner/claimant. While the 1st respondent vehicle was driven at normal speed, the petitioner/claimant without noticing the on coming vehicle, suddenly tried to cross the road from the tea stall to proceed to his house. On seeing that to avoid dashing on him, the rider of the two wheeler applied sudden break, but the vehicle dashed against the petitioner/claimant. The negligence of the petitioner/claimant alone caused the accident. The claim of the petitioner/claimant about the age, occupation and income is denied. The compensation claimed by the petitioner/claimant is highly excessive. Thus, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company sought for dismissal of the petition.