M DURAISAMY Vs. K BALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the finding, fastening liability on the appellant, the present appeal is filed. The second respondent, who has alleged to have purchased the vehicle, has remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Though both the respondents have been served and their names were also shown in the cause list, there is no appearance on their behalf, either in person or through the Counsel. Thus, even before this Court, there is no appearance on their behalf. Therefore, this Court has decided to dispose off the appeal on merits.

(2.) In an accident, which occurred on 19th January, 2001, the first respondent/claimant sustained compound fracture of left tibia and fibula and trochanteric fracture in left hip. Places were fitted to fuse the fractured bones. He claimed compensation of Rs. 2,00,000. The offending vehicle was not insured on the date of accident. Therefore, the injured has claimed compensation as against the appellant and the second respondent.

(3.) The second respondent, in his counter affidavit has denied the accident. He further submitted that the claim petition ought to have been dismissed for non-joinder of the Insurance Company of the vehicle TVS 50 XL bearing Registration No. TN 37 U3070, in which, the respondent/claimant travelled. He further submitted that the accident took place due to the negligent driving of the respondent/claimant. However, at Paragraph 7, he has admitted that he has purchased the motor cycle, bearing Registration No. TAP 5378 from the appellant, Mr. Duraisamy on 13th August, 2001 and nevertheless, contended that he cannot be made responsible to pay compensation.