G SUMATHY Vs. K ANBAZHAGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants are the Petitioners and fled the above appeals challenging the order and decree dated 29.07.2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

(2.) For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal. The case of the Petitioners is that on 03.10.2007 at about 09.35 hours, the deceased Swapna and her elder sister Sundari who is the Petitioner in MCOP.No.4423 of 2007 /appellant in CMA.No.1908 of 2012 were proceeding in the E.C.R.Road and as they were crossing the said road, near Panayur junction, the Van bearing Reg.No.TN-21-T-1327 came at high speed overtook a Government bus standing in the bus stop came to the right side of the road, dashed on the deceased Swapna and her sister causing fatal injuries to the deceased Swapna and also injuries to her sister Sundari. According to the Petitioners in both MCOP.Nos.4422/2007, parents of the deceased Swapna and injured petitioner represented by her father at the time of filing MCOP.No.4423 of 2007, the accident occurred only due to negligence of the 1st respondent. The said vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent. The Petitioners claim that the deceased Swapna is their daughter and she was studying 3rd standard and her age was 8 years. The Petitioners/parents lost their daughter and suffering from mental agony. The Petitioner sought for Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation for the death of their daughter Swapna in MCOP.No.4422/2007.

(3.) On the other hand, opposing the claim of the Petitioners, by filing counter, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company contends that the accident did not occur in the manner alleged by the Petitioners. The claim of the Petitioners about the injuries suffered by them is denied. The Petiitioners is to prove that the driver of the 1st respondent Lorry possessed valid licence and the vehicle was insured with them. The amount claimed by the Petitioner is highly excessive. The minor petitioner s claim that he suffered multiple injuries and fracture is not correct. The disability alleged in the petition is not correct. The 2nd respondent sought for dismissal of both the petitions.