BRANCH MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCECOMPANY LIMITED Vs. ANBAZHAGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant/Insurance Company has filed C.M.A.No.2528 of 2016, challenging the order and decree dated 07.06.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No.89 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1st Additional District Judge, at Tindivanam. Cross Objectors/claimants filed Cross.Obj.No.1 of 2017 seeking enhancement of the compensation.

(2.) For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal. It is a fatal case. The case of the Petitioners is that on 03.05.2013 at about 3.00 p.m, while the deceased Ganesh was proceeding in his two wheeler bearing Reg.No.PY-01-V-0198 and to reach KarnavurPettai, he stopped the vehicle to cross the National Highwayhs at Byepass road and at that time, a car bearing Reg.NO.TN-55-AA-333 came at high speed, driven in a rash and negligent manner in Villupuram to Chennai Road, dashed on the two wheeler, resulting in the death of the Ganesh on the spot itself. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent car driver only. At that point of time, the deceased was aged 17 years and he was a school student. The Petitioners who are the parents of the deceased lost their only son. As such, they sought for a sum of Rs.15,00,0000/- as compensation from the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the vehicle.

(3.) On the other hand, opposing the claim of the Petitioners, by filing counter, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company contends that the accident does not occur in the manner alleged by the Petitioners. On 03.05.2013, while the driver of the 1st respondent car was proceeding from Villupuram to Chennai, while going near Karnavur Byepass Road, he saw the deceased crossing the road and immediately applied sudden brake to avoid dashing on the two wheeler of the deceased. Inspite of the same, the deceased dashed his motor cycle on the right side of the car resulting in the accident. It is only due to the negligence of the deceased the accident took place. As the owner and insurer of the two wheeler are not added as parties, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The claim of the Petitioners about the age and other details of the deceased is denied. The driver of the 1st respondent car did not possess valid driving licence. The claim of the Petitioners is exorbitant. Thus, the 2nd respondent sought for dismissal of the claim petition.