LAWS(MAD)-2022-7-196

K. KUPPUSAMY Vs. JOTHI

Decided On July 12, 2022
K. KUPPUSAMY Appellant
V/S
JOTHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the first respondent before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore) in M.C.O.P.No.29 of 2009 dtd. 19/7/2016.

(2.) The respondents 1 to 5/claimants are the wife and children of one Nallathambi, who had died in a road accident on 19/11/2008. The claimants would contend that the said Nallathambi, who is aged about 30 years, was a mason, earning a sum of Rs.250.00 per day. On 13/11/2008 at about 14.30 hours, he was travelling on the Othiyadikuppam to Thirumanikuzhi Road in a tipper loaded with paddy, which was being towed by a tractor bearing Registration No.TN 31 AA 5905. The said Nallathambi was seated on the gunny bags, which was fully loaded on the tipper. The driver of the tractor was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of this, the hook of the tipper got released from the tractor, as a result of which, Nallathami had fallen down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. He was rushed to the Government Hospital at Cuddalore for first aid and later referred to the Government Hospital, Puducherry and treated for the injuries sustained in the accident. Despite the best efforts of the Doctors, the said Nallathambi died on 19/11/2008. The claimants therefore sought for a compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000.00.

(3.) The appellant / first respondent had entered appearance and filed his counter, in which, he would submit that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. He would submit that the vehicle had a valid RC, insurance and the Driver is also licenced to drive the vehicle. He would deny the income set forth by the claimants as also the occupation of the deceased. The first respondent would take up a plea that the tractor is insured and since the tipper is attached to the tractor, there was no necessity to take a separate insurance for the tipper. He would further submit that since there is a valid policy coverage, the Insurance Company is liable to compensate the appellants.