GOVERNMENT KILPAUK MEDICAL COLLEGE Vs. P MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal has been filed by the appellant / Government Kilpauk Medical College, against the award and decree dated 08.09.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.3165 of 2001, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vth Small Causes Court, Chennai.

(2.) THE short facts of the case are as follows: On 23.02.2001, while the petitioner was travelling in a TVS Champ bearing registration No.TN 01 E 8701, as rider, through Marshall Salai from North to South direction and at about 11.15 hours, when the Moped was idling at Ethiraj Salai Junction, in order to turn to the easter side, the bus bearing Registration No.TMY 2021 coming from North to South direction and driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the said moped. As a result of the impact, the rider, the petitioner and its pillion rider sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ - with interest and costs from the first respondent, the owner of the bus and the second respondent, its insurer.

(3.) THE first respondent, the Government Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai - 10, has in its counter refused the allegations made in the claim. It has been stated that when the driver of the bus had turned the bus towards left at the turning of Marshalls Road end, the said two wheeler had tried to overtake the bus on the left side. As there was insufficient place between the two vehicles, the accident had occurred. If the bus had dashed the moped from behind, the moped would have suffered extensive damage in its rear side of moped as well as causing fractures in the back side or hip bone of the rider and pillion rider of the moped. The fact that only the Moped's front fork and front wheel were damaged and the fact that the petitioner had only minor injuries clearly proves that the bus did not hit behind the moped as alleged in the claim. It was further stated that the rider of the Moped did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident and the rider had submitted L.L.R. to the Police Department in L.R.No.3177/2001, dated 12.03.2001 for the period from 12.03.2001 to 11.09.2001. It was further stated that the rider of the Moped was not its owner. Hence, the first respondent had prayed for dismissal of the claim with costs. On the pleadings of both parties, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed two issues for consideration, namely;