A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of honourable Mrs. Justice R. Tharani allowed an appeal pertaining to an accident of the original complaint who was driving a bicycle and met an accident when a car came from the opposite direction. The court held that the second respondent was unheard by the trial court and the vehicle was not insured with the second respondent, at the time of accident. It is for the claimant to prove that the insurance policy was valid at the time of accident.
Facts:
On 02.03.2003, at about 8.00 pm., when the petitioner was driving a bicycle in a slow speed, giving the extreme left side of the road, near Kuppammal Odai, a TVS Suzuki bearing Registration No.TN-41-D-7494 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction, dashed against the petitioner. He sustained injuries, he took first aid in the Batlagundu Government Hospital, then he was taken to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. He undergone treatment from 02.03.2003 till 17.03.2003 as inpatient. The petitioner was an agricultural coolie and he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Due to the disability, he could not continue his work and he claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.
Contentions of the respondents:
The manner of accident is wrongly stated. The accident has taken place only because of the sudden crossing of the cyclist. It was the claimant, without observing the traffic, has contributed to the occurrence. The vehicle was not insured with the second respondent, at the time of accident. The second respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The petition was liable to be dismissed but the Tribunal has awarded Rs.24,000/- as compensation to be paid by the second respondent on behalf of the first respondent. The Tribunal has failed to consider that the earlier policy was issued for the period from 11.09.1998 till 10.09.1998. The subsequent policy was issued from 10.03.2003 till 09.03.2004. The policy was not valid at the time of accident. The accident took place on 02.03.2003 and there was no policy at the time of accident and that the insurance is to be exonerated from the charges. The Tribunal has not given any findings as to the liability.
Observations of the Court:
Though name of the respondents is printed, there was no representation on the side of the respondents. Hence, no oral argument on the side of the respondents is recorded. On the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and on the basis of Ex. P1 and P.2, it is decided that the rider of the two-wheeler was responsible for the accident. The owner of the vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal. There was no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the second respondent. Hence, it is decided that the rider of the two-wheeler was responsible for the accident. It is seen that though the Insurance Company has taken a stand that the Insurance policy was not valid on the date of accident, the insurance company has failed to let in oral or documentary evidence to prove the same. Hence, the Tribunal has fixed the liability on the insurance company. It is for the claimant to prove that the insurance policy was valid at the time of accident. The owner of the vehicle was remained ex parte. In the above circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is not acceptable. The Tribunal ought to have fixed the liability on the owner of the vehicle. For the said reasons, the appellant is to be exonerated from the charges and the liability is fixed on the owner of the vehicle. There is no dispute regarding the quantum fixed by the Tribunal. Hence, the quantum is hereby confirmed.
Decision:
The appeal was allowed. The order of the Tribunal was modified that the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the claimant and the appellant is exonerated from the charges.
Case: The Divisional Manager vs Periyathambi and K. Kumaresan
Citation: C.M.A.(MD)No.1163 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2009
Coram: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI
Pronounced on: 24.11.2022
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments