NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. T N SRIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Insurance company, who were arrayed as 2nd and 4th respondents before the Tribunal have filed the above appeals against the judgment and decree dated bb25.04.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.377 of 2003 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Poonamallee.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal. The case of the Petitioner/injured T.N.Sridhar is that on 18.07.2003 at about 1.30 a.m., while the petitioner was travelling as a Passenger in the car bearing Reg.No.TN-09-C-9862 from west to east in the 3rd Avenue Road, Ashok Nagar, Chennai and as he was about the cross the 4th avenue, the 1st respondent's Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-22-C-9996 came at high speed, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner's car causing him injuries. The Petitioner underwent treatment both as inpatient and outpatient. The Petitioner was aged 29 years and by working as an Assistant to the Director, Ministry of Youth Development, Rajiv Gandhi Institute, Sriperumpudhur, was earning Rs.7500/- per month. Due to the injuries suffered, he is not in a position to attend to his normal work. The accident occurred due to negligence of both drivers. As such, the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the Tipper Lorry and the 3rd and 4th respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the car in which the Petitioner travelled are liable to pay the compensation.

(3.) On the other hand, opposing the claim of the Petitioner, by filing counter, the 2nd respondent insurer-National Insurance company contends that the alleged Tipper Lorry was insured with them and the accident does not occur in the manner alleged by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has to prove that the car driver possessed valid driving licence. It is only due to negligence of the car driver, the accident occurred. The claim of the Petitioner about the nature of injuries, period of treatment and disability suffered by him is denied. The amount claimed under different heads is highly excessive. The driver of the 3rd respondent car alone is responsible for the accident. The 1st and 2nd respondents are not liable to pay any compensation. The 2nd respondent sought for dismissal of the Petition.