ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. N MEENAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE allegations in the claim petition are as follows: THE petitioner No. 1 is wife of the deceased Nachiappan and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are their children. On 8.9.1994 at 5.15 p.m. while the deceased was proceeding from Teynampet via Kasturi Rangan Road and Cathedral junction on his scooter bearing registration No. TMH 6705 with his wife as pillion rider, while he waiting for signal to turn right and proceeded to turn right, the autorickshaw bearing registration No. TSJ 4102 driven by the respondent No. 1 driver, violated traffic rules and unmindful of the signal, turned right towards Cathedral Road junction at a very high speed and in the process, he collided with the deceased's scooter at the rear side by means of which both the deceased and his wife fell down. THE accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of the auto driver. THE deceased was working as clerk in Vijaya Bank, Club House Road, Madras and was aged 41 years at the time of accident and drawing salary of Rs. 7,000 per month. Hence compensation in the sum of Rs. 15,76,250 is claimed.

(2.) IN the counter filed by the respondent No. 2, the following are stated: The claim is not sustainable in law or facts of the case since the deceased did not die due to the injuries sustained in the accident which unrelated to the injuries and hence the cause of action does not survive to the claimants. The petitioners are put to strict proof that the death was due to injuries sustained in the accident. IN a settlement it was agreed that Rs. 50,000 as compensation be paid to the injured on 16.2.1995. This respondent is ready to pay the sum of Rs. 50,000 and further claim is not sustainable. The age, occupation and income of the deceased are denied. The place, date, time of accident and nature of injuries are not admitted. The compensation claimed is excessive. Hence, the petition has to be dismissed.

(3.) THE main thrust of the appellant is that Nachiappan did not die on account of injuries sustained in the road accident but his death may be due to other reasons. Per contra, the claimants would contend that even though the death did not occur at once after the accident, due to the complications which occurred aftermath the accident he died and that death is attributable to the bad consequences of the injuries sustained by the deceased.