NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SARASWATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2002 made in M.C.O.P.No.341 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram, Periyar District.

(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 10.01.1996 as the deceased was riding his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-33-X-3834, the 1st respondent vehicle bearing Registration No. TAN-8839 came at high speed in a rash an negligent manner dashed on the two wheeler of the deceased near Sivasathi Gas Company in Kangayam to Coimbatore road around 11.30 a.m., causing fatal injuries to the deceased-Nataraj, who died subsequently in the hospital. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the vehicle driver bearing Registration No.TAN-8839 of the 1st respondent which was insured with the 3rd respondent. The deceased was aged 42 years and was employed as a clerk in Kangayam Co-operative Society. Further, he owned 10 acres of land in his village, doing agricultural work in that land. He was also running coconut oil mill business. Thus, he was earning Rs.14,000/- per month in all. The petitioners/claimants who are the wife, children and mother of the deceased were dependant on his earnings. Due to the sudden loss of breadwinner of the family the petitioners/claimants are suffering. Thus, they seek a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- 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 1st respondent vehicle driver was not responsible for the accident. It was only due to the negligence of the deceased, the accident occurred. The age, avocation and income of the deceased is not admitted. The claim of the petitioners/claimants is exorbitant. Thus, the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company seeks dismissal of the petition.