UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. MUMTAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The United India Insurance Company Ltd., which figured as the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.478 of 2010 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.4), Ponneri, is the appellant in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Respondents 1 and 2 were the claimants and the third respondent herein figured as first respondent in the M.C.O.P. The respondents 1 and 2 / claimants preferred a claim against the third respondent herein and the appellant herein as owner and insurer respectively of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN04 AA 3502 claiming a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation. Even though they had computed the damages to which they were entitled at Rs.10,50,000/- for the death of their son Moses in an accident that took place at Kathirvedu Junction, Puzhal, Chennai 66 at about 01.50 p.m on 18.04.2010.

(2.) According to the claimants, the deceased Moses was proceeding in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN20 AM 3642 as a pillion rider from Puzhal to Kathirvedu and when they reached Kathirvedu Junction, the above said lorry belonging to the third respondent herein, which stood insured with the appellant herein, came there driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident by dashing against the motorcycle in which the deceased Moses was proceeding as a pillion rider as a result of which the said Moses sustained grievous injuries and on the way to the hospital, he died. Contending further that the deceased was a welder aged about 18 years and was earning a sum of Rs.300/- per day, the respondents 1 and 2 herein, who are the parents of the deceased, made the above said claim.

(3.) The third respondent, namely owner of the lorry, which is said to be the offending vehicle, did not contest the case and it remained ex parte. Since the owner of the lorry did not contest the M.C.O.P, the insurer, namely the appellant herein, got permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and contested the M.C.O.P on all grounds of defence available to the insurer besides the grounds of defence available to the insurer under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act. In the counter statement filed by the appellant before the Tribunal, the appellant insurance company chose to incorporate a blanket denial of each and every allegation made in the claim petition. Besides making such a denial, the appellant insurance company also has stated in the counter statement that the averments that the lorry bearing Registration No.TN04 AA 3502 owned by the third respondent was covered by a valid insurance policy issued by the appellant as on the date of accident and that the driver did have a valid licence to drive the vehicle should be proved by the claimants, namely respondents 1 and 2 herein. It has also been contended in the counter statement that the contention of the claimants (respondents 1 and 2) that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry belonging to the third respondent by its driver was also to be denied and such allegations should be strictly proved by the claimants (respondents 1 and 2 herein).