CHITRA Vs. R C VENKATESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners/claimants have filed this appeal against the award and decree dated 14.12.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.145 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge Court at Sankagiri.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal. The case of the petitioners/claimants is that on 24.12.2005 at 08.15 p.m, while the deceased was riding his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN.28-K-4858 in Paramathi to Vellore Main Road, while going near Yogalakshmi weigh bridge at Paramathi, the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-47-F-2160 came at high speed, dashed against the two wheeler of the deceased causing him fatal injuries, resulting in his death on the way to the hospital. The accident occurred only due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent, the erstwhile owner of the lorry which was insured with the 3rd respondent. The deceased was aged 35 years and as a practising advocate was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. The petitioners/claimants who are the wife and parents of the deceased were depending on the earning of the deceased. Thus, the petitioners/claimants seek a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents.

(3.) On the other hand, opposing the claim of the petitioners/claimants, by filing counter, the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company contends that the accident did not occur in the manner alleged by the petitioners/claimants. The 3rd petitioner/claimant/father of the deceased is not the legal heir and the petition is bad for mis-joinder of parties. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the deceased himself. The insurer and insured of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-28-K-4858 are necessary parties to the petition. As they are not impleaded, the petition is to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties. The claim of the petitioners/claimants about the age and income of the deceased is disputed. The amount claimed by the petitioners/claimants is highly excessive. Thus, the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company sought for dismissal of the petition.