Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. A case under Section 304(A) I.P.C was registered against the third respondent/first respondent's driver by Thachanallur Police. The tipper lorry bearing Registration No.TN-72-T-6005 was belonged to the third respondent/first respondent and the said vehicle was insured with the appellant/second respondent Insurance Company.

7. The third respondent/first respondent (owner of the vehicle) has remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

8. The appellant/second respondent Insurance Company took a plea in the counter that the driver of the lorry did not possess a valid and effective licence on the date of accident namely, 31.05.2003 and that the driver drove the said vehicle without licence for three years and therefore, the owner of the lorry namely, the third respondent/first respondent was liable to pay compensation and that the owner of the vehicle had wilfully permitted the driver to drive the heavy vehicle and that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased and therefore, the appellant/second respondent Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation claimed and in any event, the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) was excessive and that the respondents 1 and 2/claimants had to prove that the deceased was employed as an engineer and LIC Agent and earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- p.m.

15. The next aspect that arises for rumination is whether the respondents 1 and 2/claimants are entitled for any compensation? If so, for what amount and from whom?

16. The first respondent/first claimant, the father of the deceased Avudaiappan @ Kumar, has been examined as P.W.1, Andiappan, in the case. In his evidence, P.W.1 has deposed that the deceased Avudaiappan @ Kumar was his eldest son and at the time of his death, he was aged 27 years and that in Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering, his son obtained first class with honours from M.S.P.T.Polytechnic and in Shree Radhaakrishnan Automobiles at Tuticorin, his son was employed as Generator Sales Representative on a monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- and that he also acted as an LIC Agent on a monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- and totally, he gave Rs.8,000/- to the family and that he received training as Technician in Spic Electronic and Systems Limited, Maraimalainagar, Chennai and in Fastenex Private Limited, Thattanchavady, Pondicherry, his son worked in the Wind Farm Site as a Wind Mill Operator and that his son would have become a famous engineer if he has not died in the accident. Ex.A.6, is the Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering, awarded to the deceased Avudaiappan @ Kumar in April 1997 by the State Board of Technical Education and Training, Tamil Nadu and a perusal of it shows that the deceased had passed his Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering in First Class with Honours.

17. Ex.A.7 is the license obtained by the deceased Avudaiappan @ Kumar to act as an LIC Agent issued by the Branch Manager of Tirunelveli Branch, LIC of India and in this document, it is mentioned that their licence to act as an LIC Agent is valid upto 02.05.2003. Therefore, on the date of accident on 31.05.2003, the deceased Avudaiappan @ Kumar (son of the claimants) cannot act as an LIC Agent in the absence of a valid license to that effect issued by the competent authority.

18. Ex.A.8, is the certificate issued by Honda Siel Power Products Limited to the deceased Avudaiappan of M/s.Sri Radhakrishna Automobilies, Tirunelveli for having successfully achieved the target for the period of starting 150 MSSS in May 2002.

24. At this stage, it is to be pointed out that since the licence to act as an LIC Agent has expired on 02.05.2003 as per Ex.A.7, this Court has not taken into consideration the evidence of P.W.1 Andiappan, that his son received a sum of Rs.4,000/- p.m towards his salary as LIC Agent.

25. In the claim petition, the deceased Avudaiappan's age has been mentioned as 27 at the time of the accident. The first respondent/first claimant/P.W.1's age in the petition has been mentioned as 53 and the second respondent/second claimant's age has been mentioned as 47.