SARANYA Vs. A PANNEERSELVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants are the claimants and has filed this appeal challenging the Judgment and decree dated 05.01.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.349 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Perambalur.

(2.) For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal. It is a fatal case. The case of the Petitioners is that on 11.07.2013 at about 7 p.m., the deceased Anandh was riding his two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-48-K-5669 in Perambalur to Thuraiyur road and as he was going to Nagalapuram Village, the 1st respondent lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-46-R-5659, which was insured with the 2nd respondent was wrongly parked by its driver near the middle of the road without any parking lights or warning signal and as such, the deceased Anandh dashed on the back side of the 1st respondent vehicle causing him fatal injuries resulting in his death subsequently. The accident occurred only because the 1st respondent vehicle was parked in the middle of the road without any signal. The Petitioners who are the wife, parents, sister and brother of the deceased have lost the love and affection of the deceased and also his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged 23 years and by working as Lorry driver was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Thus, the Petitioners seek sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents.

(3.) On the other hand, opposing the claim of the Petitioners by filing counter, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company contends that only due to negligence of the deceased himself, the accident occurred and the respondents are no way liable for the same. The 1st respondent Lorry was parked on the extreme left side of the road with red light switched on and it was only due to drunken mood of the deceased, he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed on the back side of the Lorry, resulting in his death. The deceased did not possess valid driving licence. The age, avocation and income stated in the petition is not correct. The amount claimed by the Petitioner is highly excessive. The Petitioners 2 to 5 were not dependants on the deceased. Thus the respondent seeks dismissal of the Petition.