LAWS(MAD)-2018-10-257

MANJULA Vs. M SAKTHIVEL

Decided On October 08, 2018
MANJULA Appellant
V/S
M Sakthivel Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.200 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai. They filed the said Claim Petition claiming a sum of Rs. 14 Lakhs as compensation for the death of one Tamilselvan. The first appellant is the wife, appellants 2 and 3 are the parents, appellants 4 and 5 are the daughters, appellants 6 and 7 are the brothers and the eighth appellant is the son of the deceased.

(2.) According to the appellants, the deceased was doing business of buying and selling Tamarind. On 11.07.2006, the deceased Tamilselvan purchased Tamarind at Madurai and loaded the same in the Van belonging to the first respondent and travelled along with the goods and his loadmen. At that time, the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle on Pudukkottai Road in a rash and negligent manner and due to the same, the vehicle got capsized. In the accident, the said Tamilselvan and Others sustained grievous injuries. The said Tamilselvan died on the way to the hospital and one Karunanithi, who had travelled along with the said Tamilselvan as a loadman, died in spite of medical treatment. One Suriyamoorthy, who had also travelled in the said vehicle as loadman, sustained injuries. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent. The vehicle was insured with the second respondent and hence, both the respondents are liable to pay compensation. At the time of accident, the said Tamilselvan was doing Tamarind business and was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month and the appellants are legal heirs and dependants of the deceased.

(3.) The first respondent has filed counter before the Tribunal contending that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent, but due to overloading and the vehicle was insured with the second respondent and therefore, the second respondent is liable to pay compensation to the appellants/claimants.