NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. R K KAVITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Cross Objection are filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.700 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Court, Tirupur.

(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 07.12.2007 at about 8.00 p.m., while the deceased Rajkumar was riding his two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-39-AP-5829 in Thiruppur to Mangalam Main Road from east to west near S.R.Nagar, Karuparayan Koil, a Tempo van bearing Reg.No.TN-33-AA-4243 driven by the 1st respondent owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent came at high speed in the opposite direction and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased Rajkumar causing him grievous injuries all over his body, resulting in his death. The accident occurred only due to negligence of the 1st respondent driver, who was driving the above said Tempo Van in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased was aged 41 years and was employed as a Manager in a Private Firm earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He was the only bread winner of the family consisting of wife, children viz., Petitioners 1 to 3 and parents of the deceased, who are Petitioners 4 and 5 herein. Due to the sudden death of the said Rajkumar, the Petitioners is stated to have suffered loss of income and as such, sought for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- from the respondents.

(3.) On the other hand, opposing the Petition, by filing counter, the 3rd respondent Insurance company denied the claim of the Petitioner about the manner in which the accident occurred. The Petitioners' claim about the age, avocation and income of the deceased is denied. The dependency of the Petitioners on the income of the deceased is to be proved. The claim of the Petitioners that the 1st respondent driver drove his van recklessly at high speed is not correct. The Petitioners have to establish that the driver of the two wheeler as well as van possessed valid driving licence and were covered under insurance policy. The claim of the Petitioners is very exorbitant. The 3rd respondent Insurance Company sought for dismissal of the Petition.