THANGAMMAL Vs. R. DHARMALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the award dtd. 23/12/2014 passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 652 of 2010, the appellants/claimants have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

(2.) Brief facts are that on 22/4/2008 at about 7.00 P.M., near Palkara Varthan Thootam, Sukkampatti Var, on the road of Valayapatti to Sukkampatti main road, while the deceased Ganesan @ Sivakumar was riding in a by-cycle on the left side of the road, a TVS XL Super bearing registration No. TN-28 AC 5407 coming from the opposite direction owned by the first respondent insured with the second respondent driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased by-cycle. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head and also multiple injuries all over the body. After the accident, the deceased was admitted in Government Hospital, Namakkal where from he was shifted to Balaji Hospital, Namakkal for better treatment and thereafter, shifted to Government Hospital, Namakkal for further treatment and finally succumbed to injuries on 24/7/2008. Regarding the accident, a criminal case in Crime No. 171 of 2008 under Sec. 279 and 338 IPC was registered by Namakkal Police Station. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 27 years and was earning Rs.10,000.00 by working as Mason. The claimants are mother and father of the deceased. Stating that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the TVS XL Super bearing registration No. TN-28 AC 5407, the claimants have filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000.00.

(3.) Denying the accident, the second respondent filed counter stating that the petitioner lodged a false complaint as if the first respondent's vehicle was driven by its driver in a negligent manner and in fact, the vehicle TN-28 AC 5407 was not involved in the accident. It is stated that the deceased was not died due to accidental injuries as the accident took place on 22/4/2008 and died on 24/7/2008. The claimants are not entitled for death claim and they only entitled for medical expenses. Without prejudice to the above contentions, the second respondent insurance company denied the age, occupation, monthly income of the deceased and also stated that the compensation of Rs.8,00,000.00 claimed by the claimants is excessive.