UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. R VENKATESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Madras-2 aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (VI Small Causes Court), Madras dated 23.8.1995 made in M.C.O.P. No. 2428 of 1992, has preferred the above appeal.

(2.) In respect of injuries sustained in a motor accident on 2.8.1992, the claimant- respondent No. 1 herein made a claim for Rs. 43,000 before the Tribunal. According to the claimant, on 2.8.1992 at about 12.10 hours, when he was riding a bicycle along Selliamman Koil Street from north to south, an autorickshaw bearing registration No. TSK 2563 coming from behind in the same direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit against his bicycle, causing grievous injuries to him and damaging his bicycle. It is further stated that the respondent No. 1 therein, as owner of the autorickshaw and the respondent No. 1 therein, as insurer of the same are liable to pay compensation. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the autorickshaw, respondent No. 1 therein did not contest the claim and he was set ex parte. The respondent No. 2 insurance company alone filed a counter- affidavit wherein it is stated that in the absence of insurance details, the vehicle in question had no valid insurance in the name of the owner at the time of the accident and hence the insurance company is in no way liable for the compensation. Before the Tribunal, 4 witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 4 and documents, Exhs. P-l to P-10 marked on the side of the claimant, whereas the insurance company has examined one Jayakumar as RW 1 and marked 2 documents as Exhs. R-l and R-2. On appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal after holding that the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver of the autorickshaw TSK 2563 and the respondent No. 2 insurance company is liable to pay compensation, passed an award for Rs. 20,000 with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit in favour of the claimant. Questioning the award on the ground of its liability, the insurance company alone has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Though both the respondents were duly served notice from this court, they have not chosen to contest the appeal by engaging a counsel.