AFFIDAVIT

I, C.T. Murugan S/o. KN.N. Chidambaram chettiyar, Hindu aged about 47

years residing at 5/588- Sri Ambigai bhavanam, Thiruvalluvar street,

sdaseeva nagar, Madurai -20, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state

as follow.,

1. I am the deponent herein

2. I have purchased One plot bearing no. 87 comprised in survey no. 71/2

which comprised of total extent 1 acre 95 cents and which has been

subsequently divided into number of parts. The said property originally

belonged to Tmt. KN.N.C.T. Nagammai who has purchased the said property

in its larger extent from the legal representatives One Sankaranasari (i.e)

Rajendaran and others by registered sale deed dated 28.08.1995. The

predecessors in interest (i.e) Rajendaran and others have acquired the said

property by way of registered partition between on Natarajan asari and

others and this property has been referred to us in item no.2 in ‘B’ Schedule.

The registration company of the said partition deed would go to show that

the said partition deed has been registered in Book No. 1, Vol. No. 2498 in

Pg. 409 to 415 as document No. 5808/1974. When the property was

purchased by TMt. Nagammal though the book number, volume number,

pages and the year of registration have been correctly stated the registration

number ha been wrongly mentioned as 5797 instead of 5808.

3. The said mistake is an inadvertent typographical mistake, and the same

may be ignored when the Book number, volume number, page number, and

the description of the property comprised in Survey No. 71/2 and the plot

number are correctly stated and there is no discrepancy.

Therefore, I sworn this affidavit that the mistake committed in the sale

deed with reference to Registration No. 5797 instead of 5808 is a

typographical mistake which does not contemplate any rectification.

 IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL,
MADURAI.
M.C.O.P. No. of 2018

Between:
1. Malarkodi,
W/o. Ravindaran,
Annaandharaj illam,
Thabal thandi nagar,
Madurai-17. ………. Petitioner

And:
1. P. Durai raj,
S/o. V. Packiyam servai,
D/no. 31, Thabalthanthi nagar 3rd street,
Madurai-14
2. The New India Assurance company ltd.,
Regional Office,
Kamarajar salai,
Madurai.
3. Ananthi,
W/o.
Xxxx ………. Respondents

PETITION SUBMITTED ON THE SIDE OF THE PETITIONER

ABOVE NAMED UNDER SECTION

1. Name of the Deceased : Ravindaran

S/o. Duarairaj,
Anandha raj illam,
Thapal thanthi nagar,
Madurai -17.

2. Age : 57 years
3. Occupation : Assistant Manager (retired)
Indian Overseas Bank
K.Pudur,
Madurai.
 -2-

4. Last drawn salary : Rs. 34,222/=

5. Place of Accident : Karur to salem National Highways
Kirampoor, thattankuttai,
Opposite to Navodhaya Accademy
School deviation.

6. Date of Accident : 04.10.2017 at 08.45 hrs

1. The nerve setting accident took place on 04.10.2017 at 08.45hrs in

karur to salem National highways road at kirampur, thattankuttai just

opposite to Navodhaya accadamey School deviation. At the place of accident

the said road is running to east west. The petitioner, the wife of the

deceased Ravindaran visited along with her husband, Daughter Bhgaya

shree and granddaughter Miythree was proceeding in the car Hyundai i20

bearing registered no. TN 59 BM 2938 belonging to the 1st respondent herein

from Madurai to Bangalore in the said National Highways road. One

Alagumannivannan the driver o the 1st respondent has driving the vehicle at

the time of the accident. The said road is a four track road and in the middle

there is a Median dividing the road in a two half. The driver of th e1st

respondent was proceeding from Karur to Namakkal at he time of the

accident. The driver of the 1st respondent derived the vehicle in rash and

negligence and that to with have the rules.

2. While the Vehicle was proceeding near Navothaya Accademy School

deviation in Kirampur, thattankuttai, the car due to the hectic speed at the

rash and negligence driving and the 1st respondent driver has got out of

control and thereupon it has gone right side of the road after apported in the

center median and then having further gone to the outside of the road and

xxxxxx one lorry here in Register No. TN 21 AR 3724 which was coming in
 -3-

the opposite direction proceeding from Karur. Due to the heavy impact the

driver of the vehicle, the husband of Malarkodi and Baghya shree the

daughter of the petitioner have sustained multiple fattle injuries and

thereupon they surcumbled to injuries on the spot itself. The petitioner and

her granddaughter Miythree have sustained multiple injury on the out of the

body immediately after accident the petitioner and the granddaughter where

admitted in the Government Hospital at Namakkal. The death persons where

taken to Government Hospital for autopsy. But for the rash and negligence

driving of the 1st respondent’s driver the accident to put not have taken

place. Furthermore the facts and circumstances derived above would clearly

reveal that the “prima facie” negligence is on the part of the 1st respondent

driver.

3. The deceased was aged about 57 years at the time of the accident and he

was hale and hearty with locust health. Before accident he was working as

Assistant Manager in IOB Bank and he was retired on 31.07.2016 at he time

of superannuation. He was earning a sum of Rs. 46,081/= at the time of

accident. He was drawing a sum of Rs.23,041 towards pensun. The 1 st

petitioner is the wife and the another occupant of the part Baghya sree with

her daughter miythree is a granddaughter of the deceased Ravindaran. The

3rd respondent the daughter of ravindaran who is now residing at xxxx and

her signature not be obtained by the petitioner she has been impleaded as

Respondent to be sanctioned. Though the deceased ha attained

superannuation he contributed the entire pensun amount to the family

consisting of his wife, father and the daughters. If this accident does not

happened he would have lived after 75 years and he would have contributed

not only his income but also he would have surveyed the love and affection

to the entire family consisting of his father, wife and grandchildren. The loss

of income, the love and affection, future expectation of life and other
 -4-

consequential law even though cannot be estimated in terms of monetary

value the petitioner mandatorily estimate the same routine of Rs. /=.

Since the 1st respondent is the owner of the vehicle and he has insured

the vehicle in the 2nd respondent under private car package policy in Policy

no. 1B00031160300566962 more than respondent have liable to pay

compensation.