LAWS(MAD)-2009-8-434

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. JAYANTHI

Decided On August 07, 2009
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Appellant
V/S
JAYANTHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein united India Insurance Company Limited, has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the Judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Fast Track Court No.I), Chennai in MCOP No,2149 of 2006 dated 30.01.2008 awarding a compensation amount of Rs.10,82,000/- to the claimants/respondents 1 and 2 herein who are the parents of the deceased by name sai Lavanya.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows:On 19.02.2003 at about 7 p.m., the deceased along with her friend was going in a motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-23-E-1621 at Vellore to Kadpadi road. THE deceased riding as a pillion rider and her friend riding the motor cycle were going neer Odaipillaiyar Koil junction. A private bus bearing registration No.TN-36-0708 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in the same direction and hit behind the motor cycle. THE deceased was thrown out of the vehicle and sustained injuries and on the way to hospital she died. THE parents of the deceased filed a petition claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. THE 3rd respondent herein who is the owner of the vehicle remained exparte before the Tribunal. THE claim was resisted by the appellant herein who is the insurer of the offending vehicle.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the claimants/respondents 1 and 2 herein submitted that the deceased was a final year B.E. student and she was a selected candidate for the job as Assistant System Engineer and Trainee in Tata Consultancy Service, Chennai and her future monthly income was fixed as Rs.18,000/-. THE deceased had a bright future. But due to this accident, the parents have lost their only daughter. THE age of the father and mother of the deceased were 43 and 52 respectively at the time of accident and the Tribunal is applied only appropriate multiplier 15. THE learned counsel for the respondent further pointed out that the Tribunal has failed to grant some amount as compensation towards loss of love and affection.