NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. DEIVANAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 3. 3. 1992 at about 6. 30 p. m. while the deceased Kandasamy was riding his bi-cycle, his father sengamalai Padayachi was sitting on the back seat. While the cycle was proceeding along Ammamapalayam Road near Bungalow Kadu, a tractor bearing registration no. TN-27-Z-2151 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the cycle from the back and hence the accident occurred. Both of them sustained serious injuries and were removed to government Hospital, Attur. Kandasamy was referred to M. K. G. M. C. Hospital, Salem, for further treatment, however, on the way, he died. He was aged about 28 years at the time of accident. He was an agriculturist and tapioca broker. Agricultural lands to the extent of 2. 49. 5 hectare belong to the family of the deceased. He was earning not less than Rs. 2,000/- per month. The first petitioner is wife of the deceased; second and third petitioners are minor sons and fourth and fifth petitioners are parents of the deceased. Hence a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- is claimed as compensation.

(2.) IN the counter filed by the first respondent, it is stated that the deceased was aged more than 40 years and was not doing any work. He was neither an agriculturist nor a tapioca broker. The accident occurred due to the natural causes. The compensation claimed is excessive. The deceased was responsible for the accident. He lost control over his cycle. He was already sick. This respondent's vehicle was hypothecated to indian Bank, Attur Branch and the understanding was that the banker should pay the insurance premium at the appropriate date. Hence the petition has to be dismissed.

(3.) IN the additional counter filed by the first respondent, it is stated that on 2. 3. 1992, the fourth respondent bank debited Rs. 1,411/- from this respondent's loan account towards policy amount. On 2. 3. 1992 itself by way of banker's cheque, the policy amount was paid to the third respondent-Insurance Company. Due to oversight the third respondent had not insured the vehicle in time and to avoid payment of compensation, they insured the vehicle on 4. 3. 1992 alone. Hence, both the Insurance company and Bank are responsible to compensate the claimants.