K RAMALINGAM Vs. PARVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Sundaram, a permanent resident at Periyathatchur Agaram Village, Dindivanam Taluk was returning from Kollidam Thaikkal with his hand cart to his house in Kalaignar Colony at about 20.00 hours on 16.1.1990, when a tractor bearing Registration No.TCO-6043 attached with a trailer bearing Registration No.TCO-6044, belonging to the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No.206 of 1990 (on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagapattinam), driven by one Jagannathan (first respondent in the MCOP) in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against him and the cart. In the said incident, the deceased Sundaram sustained serious injuries and subsequently died in Poosai Hospital at Kollidam. Respondents 1 to 4 herein, as petitioners filed M.C.O.P. No.206 of 1990 against the appellant and Respondents 5 to 7 herein, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation at Rs.1,25,000. The first respondent is the wife of the deceased Sundaram while Respondents 2 and 3 are the minor children and the 4th respondent is the sister of th said Sundaram.

(2.) THE appellant herein viz., the owner of the said vehicle resisted the petition contending that the tractor was driven by the driver slowly and cautiously and it was the deceased, who suddenly crossed the road without noticing the tractor, which ultimately resulted in the accident. Yet another contention has been raised to the effect that he purchased the tractor and trailer under hire purchase scheme from the State Bank of India, Sirkali Branch, the 6th respondent in this appeal and who has agreed to insure the vehicle and renew the same from time to time till the entire loan is cleared and collect the premium from the appellant. In fact, the said Bank did so for the first three years, but however, omitted to renew the Insurance Policy probably due to oversight or negligence. Instead of renewing the policy on or before the expiry date, the Bank paid the premium only on 18.1.1990 that was on the 3rd day of the accident. As in law, the Bank alone is the owner of the tractor and trailer till the loan is repaid and cleared and as the appellant was not the owner on the relevant date, the appellant is not liable to pay any amount. Thirdly, it is contended that in any event, the claim made by the appellant is excessive.

(3.) WE heard the elaborate submissions made by the counsel for the respective parties. The materials available on record have also been perused.