NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SELVARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company, challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2008 passed in MACT.O.P.No.30 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram.

(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 19.05.2003, at about 8.00 a.m., the deceased Narayanasamy was travelling in the Tempo bearing Reg.No.TN-32-BJC-1326 as loadman, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said vehicle, the same capsized resulting in the death of Narayanasamy on the spot itself. According to the Petitioners/parents of the deceased Narayanasamy, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the above said Tempo bearing Rg.No. TN-32-BJC-1326, belonging to the 1st respondent. At that time, the deceased was aged 16 years and he was earning Rs.3000/- per month by working as Loadman. The Petitioners, who are the parents of the deceased were depending on the income earned by the deceased. Due to his sudden demise, the petitioners have lost their son and also his monetary contribution to the family. Thus the Petitioners sought for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the above said offending vehicle.

(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 that the Tempo Van bearing Reg.No.TN-32-BJC-1326 was driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and the deceased being an unauthorised passenger is not entitled to ask for any compensation. In the FIR, offending vehicle was shown as unknown . As such, the vehicle bearing Reg.No. TN-32-BJC-1326 was not involved in the accident. The deceased travelled in the goods vehicle as unauthorised passenger. The deceased was not a loadman or cooly attached to the said vehicle. The above said vehicle was not involved in any accident on 19.05.200 The claim of the Petitioner is exorbitant. The 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. Thus, the 2nd respondent sought for dismissal of the Petition.