N RAMACHANDRAN Vs. MEERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following the allegations in brief contentions contained in the claim petition. On 01. 01. 2003 at about 5. 30 p. m. while the deceased Murugan was going by his Hero Majestic PY 02 1600 along Kollumankudi - Kumbakonam Main road, near grave yard in Karukkathi village, the appellant came from the opposite side in his Hero Majestic Motor Vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 51 4990 in a rash and negligent manner and without following the traffic rules in a wrong side, dashed against the two wheeler rode by Murugan by means of which he sustained serious bleeding injuries and he breathed his last breathe on the spot. THE accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant. A case in Crime No. 2 of 2003 was registered in Peralam Police Station against the appellant under Section 304 (A) of I. P. C. THE deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 4, 500/- by milk vending business. THE first claimant is his wife, second minor claimant is their son and the third claimant is his mother. Hence, a sum of Rs. 3, 00,000 is prayed for as compensation.

(2.) IN the counter filed by the appellant, it is stated that it is true to state that in a road traffic accident, Murugan died on 01. 01. 2003 at 5. 30 p. m. But this appellant is not responsible for the accident. The vehicle rode by this appellant did not dash with the vehicle in which Murugan was coming. The appellant was riding the two wheeler in which his wife and his two children were also sitting, along Karaikal - Kumbakonam road on the left side in a slow speed. At that time, a bus belonging to the Transport Corporation was coming from east to west and hence the appellant took his vehicle to the Northern side of the road. Since there was a pit on the northern side of the road, the appellant stopped his vehicle about three feet away from the pit. The speed of the bus was reduced and the said Murugan on seeing the bus which was going slowly came speedly, to overtake the bus on its right side and he did not notice the pit and fell down inside the pit and sustained injury on his head and died. While he was falling down, the lid of the milk can which was tied in his two wheeler struck on the forehead of the appellant and hence he suffered injury. The accident took place in the above said manner and there was no collision of the vehicles.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant would garner support from a decision of this Court reported in 2006 (1) CTC 446, Duraivendhan Vs. Hindu Bharathi Education Company, Ambur and another in which this Court has come down heavily on the person who drive the vehicle in an intoxicated condition. THE relevant portion is as follows -