UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. ANTHONY SELVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. that figured as the second respondent before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VI Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.1005/2010 is the appellant in the civil miscellaneous appeal. Anthony Selvam, the first respondent herein filed the above said MCOP under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against P.Damodaran, the second respondent herein and the appellant herein/insurance company, claiming a sum of Rs.2.00 Lakhs as compensation for the injuries allegedly sustained by him in an accident that took place on 19.11.2002 at about 01.10 Hrs. at Erukkanchery High Road, Erukkanchery, in which the lorry bearing Registration No.TNG 7876 belonging to the second respondent herein, which according to the first respondent herein/claimant, stood insured with the appellant herein/insurance company, hit the auto-rickshaw bearing Regn.No.TN-05 H-0388 which was driven by the first respondent herein/petitioner. He had also contended in his petition that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. Claiming that he sustained grievous injuries leading to permanent disability, he had claimed the above said amount, namely Rs.2.00 Lakhs, as compensation under the structured formula provided in the second schedule invoking the no fault liability clause found in Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(2.) The second respondent herein, namely the owner of the lorry said to be the offending vehicle, did not contest the case. The appellant herein/insurer alone contested the case by filing a counter and additional counter contending that the lorry bearing Regn. No.TNG 7876 was not validly insured with the appellant herein with necessary coverage at the time of accident. It was also contended therein that the first respondent herein/claimant should prove that the driver of the said lorry did possess a valid driving license to drive the vehicle in question and that the claimant should also prove the accident as well as the negligent aspect. It was further contended that the first respondent herein/claimant invited the accident due to his own negligence and that in any event, he had also contributed towards the accident. Contending further that the amount claimed as compensation was highly excessive, the appellant herein/second respondent (insurance company) prayed for the dismissal of the MCOP. In the additional counter affidavit it was contended that the MCOP was not maintainable, since the first respondent herein/claimant already filed a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act in W.C.No.219/2007 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour II, Chennai and the said workmen compensation case was dismissed on merits on 26.11.2007 and that hence the claim made under the Motor Vehicles Act on the same cause of action is barred under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(3.) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal conducted an enquiry, in which two witnesses were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and 11 documents were produced and marked as Exs.P1 to P11 on the side of the first respondent herein/claimant, whereas no witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the appellant herein/insurance company, which figured as the second respondent in the MCOP.