Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. By a Common Judgment, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dindigul, (Principal District Judge, Dindigul), disposed of M.C.O.P. Nos.1260/94, 55/95 and 56 of 1995 and other Claim Petitions on 28.02.1997.

2.C.M.A. No.1228 of 1997 has been filed by the claimants in M.C.O.P. No.1260 of 1994, claiming enhanced compensation over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal. C.M.A. No.88 of 1998 has been filed by the claimant in M.C.O.P. No.55 of 1995, claiming enhanced compensation over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. C.M.A. No.327 of 1998 has been filed by the claimant in MCOP. No.56 of 1995, claiming enhanced compensation. CMA. Nos.1331, 1337 and 1333 of 1998 have been filed by the Insured (owner of the vehicle), questioning the correctness of the Judgment of the Tribunal, exonerating the Insurance Company with reference to MCOP Nos.1260/94, 55/95 and 56/95 respectively.

4. In M.C.O.P. No.1260 of 1994, the claimants viz., the mother, widow and the minor son of Dr.Premachandran claimed that they should be paid a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. In M.C.O.P. No.55/95, Dr.Reshmi claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of compensation. Dr.Shanthi, the Claimant in MCOP.56 of 1995 claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of compensation.

The first respondent in all the above MCOPs viz., Aravind Eye Hospital, represented by its Secretary was absent and hence it was set ex parte. The 2nd respondent viz., the United India Insurance Company Limited, Madurai, resisted the claims, contending that the accident did not take place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. According to the 2nd respondent, the Driver was driving the vehicle slowly and cautiously, but however, because of the heavy rain and failure of the brake, the Driver was not able to control it and only in those circumstances, the vehicle dashed against the tree. Hence, the accident occurred only due to the act of God. That apart, the 2nd respondent also contended that the first respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy inasmuch as in the said vehicle viz., Tempo Traveller Mini Van, more persons were carried contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy and hence, only the first respondent is solely liable to pay the compensation, if any.

5. At the trial, witnesses were examined by both sides and several exhibits were marked. The Tribunal, after elaborately considering the materials available on record, came to the conclusion that the claimants in MCOP No.1260/94 viz., the appellants in CMA.1228/97 would be entitled for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of compensation. The Tribunal fixed the compensation payable to the claimant in MCOP.55/95 viz., the appellant in CMA.88/98 as Rs.45,500/-. So far as the claimant in MCOP No.56 of 1995 (appellant in CMA.327 of 1998), the Tribunal fixed the compensation at Rs.67,500/-.

(b)What is the amount of compensation payable to the claimants in M.C.O.P. No.1260 of 1994 viz., the appellants in CMA No.1228 of 1997?
(c) What is the amount of compensation payable to the claimant in MCOP No.55/95, the appellant in CMA.88 of 1998?
(d) What is the amount of compensation payable to the claimant in MCOP.56 of 1995, the appellant in CMA.327 of 1998?
(e) Whether the Insurance Company is absolved of its liability on the ground that the vehicle carried more persons than what is allowed/prescribed in the policy?