DIVISIONAL MANAGER Vs. P.JAGAJOTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is the appellant before this Court, challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P. No.580 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court) Cuddalore. The facts are briefly reproduced herein below necessary for appreciating the contentions raised by the appellant herein.

(2.) The respondents 1 to 6 herein who are the claimants before the Tribunal below are the legal representatives of late Bhoovaramoorthy's They are the wife, children and mother of the deceased. It is their case that the said Bhoovaramoorthy was working as a driver in Saudi Arabia and earning a sum of Rs.25,000.00 per month. On 25/11/2010 when the deceased had come to India at about 15.00 hours, he was proceeding on the Vridhachalam to Chidambaram Main Road on a TVS Victor Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN-32-V-2778. When the vehicle had reached near Amdedkar Nagar, Bus Stop, a Skoda Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ME-9286, belonging to the 7th respondent herein and insured with the appellant herein driven in a rash and negligent manner at great speed rammed the petitioner's motor cycle from behind and the driver of the motor cycle died on the spot.

(3.) The respondents 1 to 6 had originally filed their claim only against the owner and insurer of the Skoda car. In the original claim petition they had stated that the accident was only on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the 7th respondent's car herein. The 7th respondent had entered appearance through counsel and had not filed a counter he was therefore called absent and set ex parte. The appellant herein had filed a counter denying the very accident and contended that the 7th respondent's vehicle was not involved in the said accident. However, the appellant had stated that they had not received any claim form the 7th respondent and was therefore, constrained to file the counter on the available material. Despite taking such stand in paragraph 9 of the counter, the appellant had made the following statement: