V VEERAIAH Vs. V RAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is a case of injury. As against the dismissal of the claim petition, the claimant has filed this appeal. When the matter came up for hearing on 03.11.2017, there was no representation for the second respondent / Insurance Company and a learned Single Judge of this Court, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and the first respondent, has allowed this appeal. On coming to know about the disposal of the appeal, the Insurance Company has filed rehearing petition stating that the judgment of this Court is an ex parte order and the non representation on his behalf was neither wilful nor wanton. In order to give one more opportunity, this Court has allowed the said rehearing petition and thereby, recalled the judgment, dated 03.11.2017, passed in the appeal.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the records carefully.

(3.) According to the claimant, when he was sitting on his Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-59-AU-1078 on the extreme left side of the road on 27.05.2012 at 4.30 p.m., the first respondent's vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-09-BD-4149 came in a great speed and dashed against him, due to which, he sustained multiple injuries and suffered amputation on his left leg. The said vehicle was insured with the second respondent herein. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimant did not establish the involvement of the first respondent's vehicle.