BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. T ROBINSON; PHILIP; GURPERSING SURJITSING BAJAWASING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant / third respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Padmanabapuram.

(2.) The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 1999, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that the petitioner was employed as a cleaner of the lorry bearing registration No.MH-04- B-3534, and that on 13.04.1997, at about 10 p.m., when the petitioner was seated next to the driver of the lorry and when the lorry was proceeding from Sankarankoil to Tirunelveli, and when it was being driven through a curved road near Ahagiyapandiapuram, the driver of the lorry drove the lorry at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the lorry had capsized. As a result, the petitioner sustained fracture of bone in his left leg and also sustained injuries on his left hand. He was immediately taken to Palayamkottai Hospital, wherein he received treatment for four days, as an inpatient. Subsequently, he took treatment at Catherin Booth Hospital, as an inpatient for two months. Due to the injuries sustained by him, he had become permanently disabled. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the first, second and third respondents, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.MH-04-B-3534.

(3.) The third respondent, in his counter has submitted that the petitioner should prove that first respondent's lorry had been covered under a valid policy of insurance with the third respondent at the time of accident and also prove that the driver of the lorry had a valid licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. It was submitted that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the petitioner and not due to any negligence on the part of the first respondent, as alleged in the claim. The averments in the claim regarding income of the deceased was also not admitted.