ASLAM YOUSUF Vs. INDUMATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the liability fastened on the appellant, to pay compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-, with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till deposit, to be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased.

(2.) Facts leading to the appeal are; that on 15.10.2009, when the husband of the first respondent/claimant, Jayakumar, was returning to his house at 07.30 p.m., in a TVS Centra motorcycle, bearing Registration No.TN-51-C4747, a Scorpio car, bearing Registration No.TN-01-Y3928, which came in the opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against the motorcyclist and, on his way to Pattukottai Government Hospital, he died. Legal representatives, namely, wife, minor sons, and parents have filed M.C.O.P.No.63 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (District Court), Thiruvarur, against Aslam Yousuf, the appellant herein, and United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai-600 007, sixth respondent.

(3.) Before the Claims Tribunal, the appellant, in his counter affidavit, filed in the year 2011, has admitted the ownership of the vehicle, Scorpio car, bearing Registration No.TN-01-Y3928. He has also attributed negligence on the motorcyclist. However, in the additional counter affidavit, filed in the year 2012, he has stated that on 26.12.2007, he had already sold the said Scorpio car to one R.Kamaraj of Palakkarai Village, Trichi District and that he has also obtained a Delivery Note. According to him, on the earlier occasion, when he filed the first counter affidavit in the year 2011, he had forgotten to mention about the Delivery Note, hence, filing of additional counter affidavit was necessitated. He has also added that the earlier counter affidavit, filed on the basis of the entries in the Registration Certificate, was wrong. He has also contended that the said R.Kamaraj had used the vehicle, without making necessary changes in the Registration Certificate. In addition to the above, he has submitted that the subsequent owner R.Kamaraj ought to have been impleaded by the respondents/claimants.