C SHANMUGAM Vs. S SENTHILKUMAR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/petitioner has preferred the present appeal in CMA No.1374 of 2005, against the award and decree passed in MCOP No.2193 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, V Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

(2.) The short facts of the cases are as follows:-

(3.) The second respondent in his counter has submitted that the petitioner has colluded with the first respondent and filed a false claim. It was submitted that the petitioner should prove his age, income, occupation, nature of injuries sustained and also prove that the driver of the first respondent's vehicle had a valid driving license and that the vehicle had been insured with the second respondent and that it was covered under a valid R.C., F.C. and permit at the time of accident. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. In his additional counter, it was submitted that as the first respondent's cheque, given as premium for insurance coverage of the vehicle, had been dishonoured, and as notice regarding the same had been sent to the first respondent, the contract of insurance between the first and second respondents did not exist and as such, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.