SANKAR Vs. M. RAMASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE injured claimant is the appellant herein. The claim made by the appellant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Erode in M.C.O.P.No.820 of 2000 claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/ - as compensation from the respondents herein in their capacities as driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle viz., a Tipper lorry bearing Registration No.TN 27 F 3335 was allowed by the Tribunal in part and the respondents 1 and 2 alone were directed to pay compensation to the appellant/ petitioner by a judgment and award dated 11.12.2001. The third respondent, insurer of the said vehicle was totally exonerated on the ground that there was violation of a condition of the insurance policy in so far as the said vehicle was plied at the time of accident without a valid permit. The Tribunal quantified the compensation at Rs.2,65,000/ - and directed the respondents 1 and 2 herein to pay the said amount jointly and severally together with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and also with proportionate costs.

(2.) AS against the disallowed portion of the claim and the total exoneration of the third respondent/insurer, the appellant/petitioner has brought forth this civil miscellaneous appeal on various grounds set out in the grounds of appeal.

(3.) THE accident alleged by the appellant/petitioner that took place on 4.4.1999 at about 1.30 p.m. near Seetharaman Palayam Sudukadu has not been denied by any of the respondents. It is also not in dispute that a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TTD 7997 and the Tipper lorry bearing Registration No.TN 27 F 3335 belonging to the second respondent were the vehicles involved in the said accident and that the petitioner was the rider of the said above motorcycle. The contention of the appellant/petitioner that while he was proceeded in the said motorcycle the above said Tipper lorry which came in the opposite direction hit him and that the accident occurred solely due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the first respondent namely, the driver of the Tipper lorry was accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal on an appreciation of evidence held that the said accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the Tipper lorry belonging to the second respondent herein by its driver, the first respondent herein. The appellant/petitioner has not chosen to challenge the said finding in the present appeal. The challenge made in the present appeal is confined to the quantum of compensation and the exoneration of the third respondent.