P. LOKANAYAKI Vs. S. VENKATESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants [claimants], challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2010 passed in M.C.O.P.No.448 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [In the Court of Small Causes], Chennai.

(2.) For the sake of convenience hereinafter the parties are referred to, as per their litigative status before the Tribunal. The case of the claimants is that, on 22.11.2007 at about 22.00 hours, while the deceased P.Ramesh was travelling in a two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-20-AY-2288 as a pillion rider, along with his friend [K.Shanmugam], who is the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.444 of 2008, from south to north in Madhavaram High Road [near St. Antony Higher Secondary School], Chennai, a Van bearing Registration No.TN-22-R-2173 owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, driven by its driver, came in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction particularly on the extreme wrong side of the said road and dashed against the two-wheeler, due to the said accident, the deceased succumbed to injuries in the Hospital. During the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 21 years, he was a student in D.B.Jain College, Chennai and doing III year B.Sc., the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased have filed a Claim Petition before the Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in which, they claiming compensation of Rs.10 lakhs from the respondents for the death of their son.

(3.) Per contra, opposing the claim of the claimants, by filing counter, the second respondent [Insurance Company] disputed the claim of the claimants, he denied the manner in which the accident had occurred, further, the claim of the claimants, about the age, avocation and income of the deceased are also denied. According to him, since the cheque issued by the first respondent towards the premium of insurance was dishonoured, the policy issued to the offending vehicle was cancelled on the date of accident. Therefore, on the date of accident, the policy is not in force and thus, the second respondent sought for dismissal of the Claim Petition.