- (1.) The appellant / second respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2003, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranipettai.
(2.) The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioners who are the sisters and brother of the deceased Yesu have filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2003, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents for the death of the said Yesu, in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 22.01.2003, at about 2.55 p.m., when the (deceased) was travelling in the lorry bearing registration No.TAV-1499, along with others and when the lorry was proceeding on the Katpadi to Gudiyatham Main Road and near Vikramasimedu, from east to west, the first respondent's van bearing registration No.TN-25-X-3597, coming on the same road in the opposite direction and driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against the lorry and caused the accident. As a result, the (deceased) and 3 others sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 25 years and was the owner of a beef stall and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Hence, the petitioners have filed the claim against the respondents 1 to 6. The first and second respondents are the owner and insurer of the van bearing registration No.TN-25-X-3597 and the third and fourth respondents are the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.TAV-1499. The fifth and sixth respondents are the legal-heirs of the (deceased) third respondent.
(3.) The second respondent in his counter has denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income, occupation of the deceased as well as manner of accident. It was submitted that the accident had been caused only by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. It was submitted that the lorry was registered as a goods vehicle and that as the driver of the lorry had permitted some persons to travel as passengers in the said lorry, the policy conditions of insurance had been violated and as such, only the third and fourth respondents are liable to pay compensation and the second respondent cannot be held liable to pay compensation. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.;