P BALASUNDARAM Vs. K RAVI; REGIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant / claimant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2007, made in M.C.O.P.No.39 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional Subordinate Court, Thiruvannamalai.

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

(3.) The second respondent Insurance Company, in his counter affidavit, has submitted that the first respondent's Tempo Van has not been insured with them at the time of accident. It was submitted that the petitioner should prove his age, income and occupation and also prove that the driver of the first respondent's vehicle had a valid licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. It was submitted that as per the recent decision of the Supreme Court, if the vehicle involved in the accident is a goods vehicle and if it is involved in any accident, even the owner of the goods, who travelled in the vehicle is not entitled to get any compensation. It was submitted that as there was a delay of one day in lodging the first information report and as the delay had not been properly explained in the petition. Therefore, the claim has to be dismissed. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.