NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. THANGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant / third respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.52 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Kuzhithurai.

(2.) THE short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioners, who are the mother and brother of the (deceased) Rajesh Kumar have filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.52 of 2001, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from the respondents for the death of the said Rajesh Kumar in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that the (deceased) was working as a cleaner in the Mahendra van belonging to one Nelson of Thiruvattur, Kanyakumari District and whenever there was leave or vacancy, the deceased worked as a cleaner in the lorry belonging to the first respondent. At the time of death, the deceased was employed as a cleaner in the first respondent's lorry bearing registration No.KLU-614 and had treavelled in the lorry, which had carried a consignment to Thoothukudi. After off loading the consignment, the second respondent, i.e., the driver of the lorry and the deceased had approached Gomathi Lorry Booking Office, Thoothukudi on 03.05.2001 at about 8 a.m., in order to take load while returning to Marthandam. The Gomathi Lorry Booking Office arranged for a salt load to be taken in the said lorry from Sree Meenakshi Self Works (P) Ltd., near Urani Ottaveedu. Since the loading of the salt would take a few hours for completion, the deceased and the second respondent were waiting there from about 8 a.m., onwards. At about 12.30 pm., when the deceased was giving signal to the lorry driver to move the lorry backwards, in the said salt factory, the second respondent moved the lorry in reverse, rashly and negligently and at a high speed and in the result, the lorry dashed against the head, chest and ribs of the deceased and caused his death. The second respondent immediately misled the few persons available in the salt factory as if the deceased was sleeping under the lorry at the time of accident, tampered the evidence and took the body of the deceased in the lorry stating that he is taking him to the hospital. But, the second respondent drove the lorry through the Thoothukudi South Police Station and Government Medical College Hospital Road to Pudukkottai about 18 kms away from the place of occurrence, and attempted to secretly dispose of the body of the deceased and to create a circumstance as if the deceased had gone out of the lorry for some other employment without informing him and thereby tried to conceal the accident. Due to blood oozing from the lorry on the road, the people suspected him and made attempts to nab the second respondent due to which it became impossible for him to dispose the body of the deceased secretly and so he left the lorry with the body of the deceased on the road at Pudukkottai and escaped from there. The second respondent failed to inform the accident to Police or Gomathy Lorry Service or any other person. Hence, the petitioners have filed the claim against the first, second, third and fourth respondents. The first, second and third respondents are the owner, driver and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.KLU-614 and the fourth respondent is impleaded herein since the insurance policy for vehicle is existing in his name.

(3.) THE first and second respondents in their counter have submitted that the deceased was not employed as a cleaner in either the Mahendra van or the lorry. It was submitted that the deceased had not worked anywhere for long stretch of time. It was submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. It was submitted that as the father of the deceased had not been added as a necessary party in the claim, it renders the claim bad. It was submitted that the lorry had been covered under a comprehensive policy of insurance with the third respondent and that the second respondent had a valid driving licence at the time of accident and as such, only the third respondent could be held liable to pay compensation, if so assessed by the Tribunal.