K JAYALAKSHMI Vs. S SAMEER
LAWS(MAD)-2018-6-711
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on June 27,2018

K JAYALAKSHMI Appellant
VERSUS
S Sameer Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. PRANAY SETHI [REFERRED TO]
BRANCH OFFICE VS. MEENAKSHI [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.Baskaran, J. - (1.)The Appellants, who are the claimants before the Tribunal, has filed this appeal, challenging the order and decree dated 13.02.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.579 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Sathyamangalam.
(2.)For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal. It is a fatal case. The case of the Petitioners is that on 19.10.2009 at about 9.00 p.m., while the deceased Vijayakumar was travelling in his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TN-40-A-4772 from south to north, at Sirumugai, another two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN40-C-1801 coming from east to west, turned towards north in a negligent manner, dashed against the two wheeler of the deceased, causing him to fall down and he sustained fatal injuries. Inspite of treatment given, he subsequently died in the hospital on 22.10.2009. The deceased was aged 35 years and by working as Welder, was earning Rs.10,500/- per month. The Petitioners who are the wife, children and mother of the deceased were depending on his earnings. The accident occurred due to negligence of the 1st respondent two wheeler rider only. As such, the respondents who are the owner and insurer of the said vehicle are liable to pay compensation. The Petitioner sought for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents.
(3.)On the other hand, opposing the claim of the Petitioners, by filing counter, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company contends that the accident does not occur in the manner alleged by the Petitioners. As two vehicles were involved in the accident, the owner and insurer of the other vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-40-A-4772 are necessary parties and failure to implead them is fatal to the Petitioners' claim. The deceased was not having valid driving licence and his negligence alone caused the accident. The claim of the Petitioners about the age, avocation and income of the deceased is denied. Only due to negligence of the deceased, the accident occurred. The amount claimed under different heads is very excessive. Thus, the 2nd respondent sought for dismissal of the Petition.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.