DURAISWAMI NAIDU Vs. KANTHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though respondents 1 and 5 to 7 were served on 25-11 1993, respondents 2 to 4 on 26-11-1993 and the 8th respondent/ insurance company on 15-11-1993, there is no representation on behalf of either of the respondents. The respondents are also called absent. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in A.A.O. No. 613 of 1985 dated 5-12-1990.

(3.) The appellant is the owner of the vehicle. Respondents 1 to 7, who are the legal representatives of deceased Balaraman, are the claimants. The 8th respondent is the insurance company. The claimants filed M.C.O.P. No. 272 of 1981 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Principal Subordinate Judge, Vellore, claiming a compensation of Rs. 60,000/- for the death of Balaraman. According to them, the deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of his death and was earning a sum of Rs. 600/- per month by working as a Cobbler. The owner of the vehicle/ appellant herein filed a counter opposing the claim. According to him, the tractor in question was not driven in a rash and negligent manner, that the driver of the vehicle was not even prosecuted as the case was one of negligence on the part of the deceased and that the same was referred as mistake of fact. It is the specific case of the owner of the vehicle that the deceased alone was responsible for his death and not either the driver or the vehicle. The insurance companmy/ 8th respondent filed a counter adopting the counter filed by the owner of the vehicle. The insurance company has, however, taken a stand that the driver who drove the vehicle had no valid licence on the date of the accident and therefore, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.