ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. ELIZABETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the appeal by the Insurance company is to the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III Additional District Judge), Salem made in M.C.O.P.No.110 of 2015. Awarding a sum of Rs. 1,13,03,500/- as compensation for the death of one Dr.Mariappan in a motor accident that occurred on 20.12.2014. The claimants who are the wife, parents and sisters of the deceased Dr.Mariappan have filed Cross Objections No. 26 of 2018 seeking enhancement of the compensation.

(2.) The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that the deceased was riding a motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-30-R-1632 from Cinnappampatty to Konganapuram following all traffic rules and regulations in a careful manner. At about 07:30 hrs, when the deceased was proceeding near Pannankadu Annanmar Sengal Sulai on Cinnappampatty to Konganapuram Road, the TATA ACE goods vehicle bearing registration No.TN-36-AX-8601 belonging to the 7th respondent in the appeal insured with the appellant Insurance company driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction came on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-30-R-1632 . As a result of the accident, the deceased Dr.Mariappan sustained grievous injuries in his head and died on the spot. Terming the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the goods vehicle as the cause for the accident, the claimants sought for a compensation of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-. The owner of the goods vehicle who was arrayed at the 1st respondent had remained ex-parte.

(3.) The Insurance company resisted the claim contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The age, income and the qualifications of the deceased were denied by the Insurance company. The Tribunal which heard the original petition concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the goods vehicle owned by the 7th respondent and insured with the appellant Insurance company. In coming to the said conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon the First Information Report filed as Ex.P1,and rough sketch filed as Ex.P4 and the evidence of PW2 who was an eye-witness to the accident. The Tribunal also drew the adverse inference against the Insurance company for its failure to examine the driver of the goods vehicle or its owner.