NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. KUPPAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 21.6.1991 the deceased and the second claimant had proceeded to Alandur by a bicycle. 9th respondent in the appeal came by TVS Suzuki TAB 7299 which belonged to the 8th respondent. In view of rash and negligent driving of the 9th respondent, TVS Suzuki dashed against the cycle driven by the deceased and in view of the said accident the father of the second claimant died. The claimants filed M.C.O.P. No. 370 of 1992 on the file of Motor Accidents claimed Tribunal, Coimbatore claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,00,250. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence found that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the 9th respondent herein and fixed the compensation at Rs.87,000. The insurance company, who is the third respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 370 of 1982 has filed the above appeal.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the Tribunal is not correct in holding that the appellant has to prove that the driver has no licence. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in Duraisami Naidu v. Kanthammal, 1997 TLNJ 83 the burden of pro of is on the insurance company by adducing necessary evidence to prove that the driver was not holding licence. Admittedly in the present case the appellant has not discharged its burden. No other point is urged before me, challenging the order of the Tribunal. Hence the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 16484 of 1995 is also.