LAWS(MAD)-2019-1-920

MALLIGA Vs. ATHEESWARAN

Decided On January 08, 2019
MALLIGA Appellant
V/S
Atheeswaran Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.4,66,500.00 awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 2749 of 2006 dtd. 10/8/2009 on the file of the II Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, the appellants/claimants have filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement.

(2.) Brief facts are that on 27/5/2006 at about 8.20 P.M., when the deceased Pachiappan was walking by the side of G.N.T. Road at Thandalam, opposite to Rajalakshmi College, a car bearing registration No. TN-01 Y 2329, owned by the first respondent, insured with the second respondent, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was admitted in Government Hospital, Sriperumbudur and succumbed to injuries on 27/5/2006. Regarding the accident, a criminal case in Crime No. 268 of 2006 was registered by Sriperumbudur police against the driver of the car. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 45 years and was earning Rs.4,500.00 per month by working as watchman in Maharaja Educational Institute, Thandalam, Sriperumbudur. Stating that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, the claimants who are wife, son and daughter have filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000.00.

(3.) Denying the manner of accident, the second respondent insurance company filed counter stating that there was a delay in lodging the complaint and also registering the FIR by the police. It is stated that the claimants have to prove the insurance policy and also valid driving licence of the driver of the car at the time of accident. According to the second respondent, the accident occurred only due to the fault of the deceased to walk on the road in a zig zag manner, carelessly and negligently without following any rules and regulations. Thus, the deceased contributed to the negligence. Therefore, the second respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.