RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. MANICKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company, challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2016 passed in M.C.O.P.No.511 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Dharmapuri.

(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 04.11.2013, while the deceased Nagarani was walking along with his son Madesh in the Karimangalam to Agaram Road around 6.30 p.m., the Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-01-AC-3042 belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent which was going towards Krishnagiri, came at high speed, without following the traffic rules, dashed against the deceased, causing her fatal injuries, resulting in her death subsequently in the hospital on the same day. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 60 years and by carrying on milk vending business, she was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. The Petitioners who are the husband and children of the deceased are denied her love and affection and also contribution to the family income due to the death of the Nagarani. As such, the Petitioners seek a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the 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, but the accident occurred only due to negligence on the part of the deceased who crossed the road without noticing the on-coming vehicle. The driver of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-01-AC-3042 did not possess valid driving licence. The said Lorry was allowed to be driven on the road without valid documents. As such, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. The claim of the Petitioners about the age, avocation and income of the deceased is denied. The amount claimed by the Petitioners is exorbitant. Thus, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company sought for dismissal of the petition.