AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—C.M.A(MD) No. 1386 of 2008
The appellant is the Insurance Company. The fourth respondent is the owner of the lorry that was insured with the appellant. One Mr. Velmurugan
was the pillion rider in the two-wheeler that was ridden by one Mr. Gnanadurai. The lorry owned by the fourth respondent involved in an accident
with the two wheeler on 04.12.2004 and both the rider and pillion rider of the two-wheeler died due to the accident. The legal heirs of Mr.
Velmurugan, namely, wife, daughter and mother, filed M.C.O.P. No. 9 of 2005, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Tuticorin, claiming Rs. 17 lakhs as compensation. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,84,000/- as
compensation with 7.5% interest and costs as hereunder:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. No. Description Amount
in Rs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 for loss of dependency Rs.3,60,000/-
for loss of love and affection Rs. 05,000/-
for transport charges Rs. 2,000/-
for funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
total Rs.3,84,000/-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal is against the said order of the Tribunal.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side.
The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the accident was solely due to the rider of the two-wheeler and the lorry driver would not be
held responsible for the accident. It is submitted that while the case of the claimants is that the lorry came in a reverse direction without noticing the
vehicles coming behind it and hit the two wheeler causing the accident and the death of both the rider and pillion rider, the case before the Criminal
Court is that the lorry was parked on the road in a negligent manner without parking light and that caused the accident and death.
The Tribunal accepted the pleadings of the claimants and held that the accident was caused due to the lorry coming in the reverse direction and
hitting the two- wheeler. This is seriously challenged by the Insurance Company stating that the finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the charge-
sheet laid before the Criminal Court after investigation.
At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the claimants submits that the issue raised by the appellant need not be gone into, as the finding on
similar lines by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. No. 201 of 2006 filed by the legal heirs of the rider Mr. Gnanadurai was not challenged by the Insurance
Company and the said finding became final. The learned Counsel for the appellant does not dispute the submission made by the learned Counsel
for the claimants. In these circumstances, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
dismissed. No costs.
Cross-Objection No. 38 of 2009
The learned Counsel for the claimants submits that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 35 years. The first claimant was aged 25
years and she became widow at the age of 25 years. The accident took place in the year 2004. The learned Counsel therefore submits that at least
a sum of Rs. 30,000/- should have been awarded towards loss of consortium. The learned Counsel further submits that the second claimant is a
minor, aged 1 1/2 years and therefore, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- should be awarded towards loss of love and affection to the second and third
claimants. In effect, the learned Counsel for claimants seeks enhancement of Rs. 30,000/-. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company does
not seriously dispute the granting of compensation under the head of loss of consortium to the young widow. In these circumstances, Rs. 30,000/-
is awarded towards loss of consortium with 7.5% interest from the date of application till the date of realisation. The Insurance company is
directed to make the payment within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Cross-Objection is
disposed of in the above terms. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.