LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-712

M ARUMUGAM Vs. K ARUMUGAM

Decided On April 25, 2018
M ARUMUGAM Appellant
V/S
K Arumugam Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants/Petitioners, challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.253 of 2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court at Krishnagiri.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their litigative status before the Tribunal. It is a fatal case. The case of the petitioners is that on 06.11.2006 while the deceased Veerasamy was travelling as Cleaner in the Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-01-B-9154 belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent from Tumkur to Salem, due to high speed in which the vehicle was driven by its driver, at about 22.00 hours, while going in M.D.Pura Ring Road, Bangalore, the driver lost control and dashed against the parked Lorry bearing Reg.No.MED-4531 and in the impact, the deceased Veerasamy who was sitting on the left side of the Lorry, suffered fatal injuries and died on the spot. The Petitioners, who are the Parents and sister of the deceased are dependants and sought compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents.

(3.) On the other hand, opposing the claim of the Petitioners, by filing counter, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company contends that the driver of the 1st respondent Lorry did not possess valid driving licence. The claim of the Petitioners about the age, avocation and income of the deceased are not true. The 1st respondent lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-01-B-9154 was not insured with the 2nd respondent. The accident did not occur in the manner alleged by the Petitioners. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.MED-4531 who parked the vehicle in the middle of the road, without any signal. The owner and insurer of the said Lorry bearing Reg.No.MED-4531 are not impleaded and as such, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The claim of the Petitioners is exorbitant. Thus, the 2nd respondent-Insurance company sought for dismissal of the Claim Petition.