ARULSELVAM Vs. REGISTRAR, NATIONAL PULSES RESEARCH CENTRE TAMIL NADU AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in C.M.A. No. 1549 of 2007, owned a two- wheeler. He rode the two-wheeler on 22.12.2000. The appellant in C.M.A. No. 538 of 2007 was the pillion rider. According to the appellants, the van of the first respondent hit the two-wheeler and the pillion rider got grievous injuries and the two-wheeler suffered damages. Hence, the Pillion rider filed M.C.O.P. No. 287 of 2001, claiming compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs. The owner of the two- wheeler filed M.C.O.P. No. 294 of 2001, claiming Rs. 15,000/- for the damages caused to the two-wheeler, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Pudukkottai. The Tribunal passed a common award, dated 21.07.2005, rejecting both the applications. C.M.A. No. 538 of 2007 is filed against the order made in M.C.O.P. No. 287 of 2004 and C.M.A. No. 1549 of 2007 is filed against the order made in M.C.O.P. No. 294 of 2001.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellants strenuously contends that the Tribunal committed grave error in not considering the relevant issue, namely, whether the van driver was negligent and rash in driving the van and caused the accident. It is submitted that the Tribunal went on to find out whether the two-wheeler was ridden by the pillion rider or by the owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal held that the pillion rider rode the two-wheeler and since, the pillion rider did not have driving licence, it was contended by the claimants that the two-wheeler was ridden by the owner of the vehicle. The learned Counsel has taken me through the evidence and other documents and submits that there is no basis for coming to such a conclusion. It is submitted that even assuming that the pillion rider rode the two-wheeler, if the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver, whether the pillion rider possessed driving licence or not is immaterial. The learned Counsel also submits that the Tribunal erroneously held that the owner of the vehicle did not have valid driving licence. The Tribunal proceeded as if he obtained driving licence on the date when he renewed the licence on 23.09.2002. The document Ex.P9 itself makes it clear that he was in possession of driving licence as on the date of the accident. In any event, it is submitted that whether the owner of the vehicle possessed driving licence or not is immaterial, if the driver of the van was responsible for the accident. But ,it is submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the issue at all as to whether the driver of the van was responsible for the accident or not. In these circumstances, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that it is a fit case for remanded to the Tribunal .