D. KALA Vs. NALAMEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant in MCOP No. 3681/2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai is the appellant in C.M.A. No.2527/2012. The claimant in MCOP No. 3682/2007 on the file of the said Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is the appellant in C.M.A. No.2528/2012. The claimant in MCOP No. 3839/2007 on the file of the same Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is the appellant in C.M.A. No.2529/2012. All the three MCOPs were filed against one and the same set of persons who figured as respondents 1 and 2 in all the three MCOPs.

(2.) ALL the three MCOPs were filed claiming compensation for the personal injuries sustained by the claimants therein/appellants in the appeals, in a road accident that allegedly took place on 11.07.2007 at 23.00 Hrs. All the three MCOPs were jointly heard and a common judgment and awards were passed on 11.06.2012. As against the common judgment and the awards, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals came to be filed challenging the total exoneration of the second respondent/insurer and claiming enhancement of compensation.

(3.) THE claims made by the appellants were not resisted by the first respondent and she remained exparte before the Tribunal in all the three cases. The second respondent/insurer alone contested the MCOPs by filing separate counter statements in all the MCOPs containing similar averments. It was contended therein that the second respondent had issued a policy of insurance in respect of the above said motor vehicle by receiving a cheque towards premium from the first respondent subject to realisation of the cheque amount; that the cheque, on its presentation for payment, was dishonoured and hence the policy automatically stood cancelled; that in view of such automatic cancellation of the policy, there was no valid contract of insurance covering the vehicle as on the date of accident and that hence the second respondent/insurer was not liable to pay any compensation to any of the appellants/claimants. In addition to the above said contention, which was the main contention, usual contentions denying the petition averments regarding the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, nature of injuries sustained by the appellants and the alleged disabilities suffered by them were made, besides pleading contributory negligence on the part of the injured persons, namely the appellants herein. It was also contended by the second respondent that the amounts claimed by the injured persons were excessive and exorbitant.