M.NALLAMMAL Vs. S.THIRUSELVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award dtd. 30/4/2012 passed in M.C.O.P.No.626 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Namakkal.

(2.) Brief facts are that on 21/10/2009 at about 7.15 A.M., the deceased Muthan was travelling as pillion rider in a TVS 50 motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-28 6612 and when the motorcycle was nearing Meikalnaickenpatti bus stop on Trichy to Namakkal main road, a Tata Sumo car bearing registration No.TN-63 U 6717 came on the same direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn dashed behind the motorcycle and caused the accident. Due to the accident, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries. Immediately, the deceased was admitted in C.M. Hospital, Namakkal, where from he was transferred to the Government Hospital, Salem and thereafter, admitted in Vinayaga Hospital, Salem for better treatment and succumbed to injuries on 2/11/2009. Regarding the accident, a criminal case in Crime No.280 of 2009 under Sec. 279, 337 and 304(A) IPC was registered against the driver of Tata Sumo car. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 55 years and was earning Rs.8,000.00 per month by doing agriculture cum coolie work. Stating that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Sumo car, the claimants who are wife, daughters and son of the deceased have filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000.00.

(3.) Denying the manner of accident, the second respondent insurance company has filed counter stating that at the time of accident, the TVS 50 was driven by the deceased Muthan, who was not possessing valid driving licence and the claimants have purposely suppressed the said fact and stated that Kandan @ Kandasamy was the rider of the TVS 50. It is stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of TVS 50 motorcycle by the deceased Muthan without having valid driving licence. The second respondent also denied the age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased and also stated that the compensation claimed by the claimants is highly excessive.