M ANNAPOORANI Vs. ANAND MUTHUKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No.2902 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their litigative status before the Tribunal. The case of the petitioner is that on 25.04.2011 at 9.40 a.m., when the petitioner was going in her scooty bearing Reg.No.TN-18-1444 towards Tambaram, in Maduravoyal to Tambaram Byepass Road, near Thiruneermalai Srinivasapuram, a Honda City Car bearing Reg.No.TN-22-BM-2436, belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, came behind the Scooty and driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the petitioner, resulting in the Petitioner sustaining multiple injuries including head injury to her. The Petitioner, in her claim Petition, averred that at the time of the accident, she was aged 25 years and by working as Senior Software Engineer was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. Due to the injury suffered by her, she could not attend to her work as she used to and hence suffered loss of income. The Petitioner sought total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

(3.) On the other hand, opposing the petition, by filing counter, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company denied the claim of the Petitioner that she was injured in the accident involving Honda City car bearing Reg.No.TN-22-BM-2436. The 2nd respondent denied the alleged traffic accident on 25.04.2011 and also stated that the policy issued for the period 03.11.2010 to 02.11.2011 does not cover the accident. The 2nd respondent states that as there was no policy coverage on the date of the accident, they are not liable to pay any compensation. The 2nd respondent also denied the involvement of the said car in the accident as claimed by the injured petitioner. The claim of the Petitioner about her age, avocation and income is also disputed. The Petitioner's claim that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent car driver is denied. The claim of the petitioner is very exorbitant. Thus, the 2nd respondent sought for dismissal of the Petition.