UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO ,LTD Vs. T GANESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cma.No.2843 of 2014 is filed by the appellant/Insurance company and Cross Objection No.127 of 2014 is filed by the Petitioner/Claimant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2013 passed in M.C.O.P.No.586 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their litigative status before the Tribunal. It is a case of injury. The case of the petitioner is that on 30.08.2010 at 7 p.m., as the petitioner was riding his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TN-37-AT-0353 in Coimbatore to Pollachi Main road, while going near Malumichampatty from South to north, the 1st respondent who was driving Mahindra van bearing Reg.No.TN-22-B-8289 came in the opposite direction at high speed and unable to control the van, dashed against the two wheeler in which the petitioner and his friend were proceeding causing grievous injuries and also fracture to the petitioner. The accident occurred only due to the negligence of the 1st respondent careless driving. The said van bearing Reg.No.TN-22-B-8289 belongs to the 2nd respondent and the same was insured with the 3rd respondent. The petitioner was aged 36 years and by working as Salesman in a Private company was earning Rs.5000/-. Due to the injuries suffered by the petitioner, he is unable to attend to his normal work. Thus, the petitioner sought for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents.

(3.) Opposing the claim of the petitioner, by filing counter, the 3rd respondent/Insurance company contends that the accident does not occur due to negligence of the 1st respondent who was driving the Mahindra van belonging to the 2nd respondent. It was only due to the negligent act of the petitioner, the accident occurred. The claim of the petitioner about the nature of injury suffered by him, age, avocation and income is denied. The claim of the petitioner is exorbitant. Thus, the 3rd respondent Insurance company sought for dismissal of the petition.