LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-300

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. T LAKSHMI

Decided On April 12, 2018
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Appellant
V/S
T Lakshmi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company, challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.2252 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Judge, Court of Small Causes, 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 28.04.2006 at about 5.30 hours, when the deceased Thirumoorthi was proceeding in a tricycle in Sardar Patel Road from west to east, opposite to E.B.Adyar Office, and was waiting in the middle of the road, to turn right towards canal bunk road, a share auto owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent bearing Reg.No.TN-02-D-3398 came at high speed, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the vehicle in which the deceased was waiting to take right turn, causing him fatal injuries resulting in his death subsequently in the hospital on 30.04.2006. The Petitioners who are wife and son of the deceased states that on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 50 years and by working as vegetable vendor was earning Rs.250/- per day. Due to his sudden death, the petitioners have lost the love and affection of the deceased and also his economic contribution to the family. Thus, the petitioners sought for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- as compensation from the respondents who are the owner and insurer of the vehicle.

(3.) On the other hand, opposing the claim of the petition, by filing counter, the 2nd respondent-Insurance company contends that the accident did not occur in the manner alleged by the Petitioners. The rider of the tricycle, the deceased, only contributed to the accident by his negligence. The age, avocation and income of the deceased as claimed by the Petitioners is denied. The amount sought for is highly excessive. Thus the 2nd respondent sought for dismissal of the petition.