LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-659

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. LAKHSMI

Decided On April 24, 2018
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Appellant
V/S
Lakhsmi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.313 of 2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruppur.

(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 Petitioners is that on 19.02.2007, at about 21.30 hours, while the deceased Arumugam was proceeding in the two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-39-AK-8469 towards Palladam, while going near Kodangipalayam Pirivu, due to high speed, in which the two wheeler was driven by the 1st respondent, the vehicle capsized and as the deceased fell down, he suffered grievous injuries and subsequently died in the hospital. The accident occurred due to negligence of the 1st respondent only. The said vehicle belongs to the 1st respondent and the same was insured with the 2nd respondent-Insurance company. The deceased was aged 37 years and by working as Power Loom Operator, was earning Rs.5000/- per month. The petitioners who are the wife, children and mother of the deceased were dependant on his earnings. Thus, the petitioners sought for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents.

(3.) On the other hand, opposing the claim of the Petitioners, by filing counter, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company contended that the accident did not occur in the manner alleged by the Petitioners. The negligence of the 1st respondent is not the cause for the accident. The age, avocation and income of the deceased as stated by the Petitioners is denied. The 1st respondent has not communicated about the accident to the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent did not possess valid driving licence. The Police registered the case and mentioned as "unknown vehicle" and subsequently the case was closed as undetectable. The 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. Thus, 2nd respondent sought for dismissal of the Petition.