(1.) THE injured claimant is the appellant seeking compensation for the injury suffered by him in a motor accident happened on 5.7.1994.
(2.) THE Claim petition M.C.O.P.No.112 of 1995 on the file of Sub Court, Ranipet was dismissed on 27.11.2001.
(3.) FROM the facts as stated above, it is clear that the theft had occurred in March, 1994 and the intimation that the Vehicle was not traceable was given on 7.6.1994 under Ex. R-4. The accident in this case happened on 5.7.1994. Therefore, it is obvious that on the date of accident, the owner of the vehicle, the first respondent had no control over the Vehicle in question. As to the liability of the owner, insofar as the accident caused due to the Vehicle, which was stolen and is not under the control of the owner of the concerned, the decisions of this court in Mariammal and others - vs. - M. Ramasubramaniam and others reported in 1999 ACJ 249 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd., - vs. - Selvarajamani reported in 1998 ACJ 547 confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Selvarajamani and two others - vs. - New India Assurance Company Ltd., reported in 2004 (2) TN MAC 21 decides the issue. In Mariammal-s case para 31 reads as follows:- -31. On a consideration of the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as the various authorities relied upon by either side and following the decision of S.M. Abdul Wahab, J., in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Selvarajamani, 1998 ACJ 547 (Madras), as it has not been established that the vehicle was driven by a person either in the employment of the respondent No.1 or the person who drove the vehicle was authorised to drive the vehicle during the material point of time, this court, while confirming the findings of the Tribunal below, exculpates the liability of the respondent No.1 owner of the Vehicle and the respondent No.2 insurer of the vehicle.- The Division Bench in the case of Selvarajamani and two others - vs. - New India Assurance Company Ltd., reported in 2004 (2) TN MAC 21 also affirmed the above view in paragraph 6 that the owner of the vehicle cannot held liable when the vehicle itself was stolen. Para 6 of the decision reads as follows:- -6. When a vehicle is stolen, it cannot always be said that the owner had been negligent. The ingenuity of the person who committed theft cannot always be foreseen. If as a prudent owner, the owner of the vehicle had taken the normal precaution of locking the car while parking it in a public place, the owner cannot be held responsible for the theft of the vehicle. The person who steals the motor vehicle cannot, on the basis of any principle, be described as an agent of the owner, or employee of the owner, for the purpose of casting liability on the owner. The concepts of agency or employment or contract are wholly inapposite in a case of theft. Theft is taking away of the property without the consent expressed or implied of the owner, and with intent to appropriate the property for oneself. None of the established legal principles can be stretched so as to constitute a thief who stole the motor vehicle, a representative of the owner for the purpose of making the owner liable.- The facts of the present case squarely fits the reasoning given by the Division Bench as above. However, in view of the provisions of section 140 (2) of Motor Vehicles Act, the owner and the insurer of the vehicle are liable to settle the claim only in respect of the -no fault liability- in sum of Rs.12,000/-.