MANICKAM Vs. GTP FINANCE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/Injured Petitioner has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2003 made in M.C.O.P.No.63 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Salem.

(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 is that on 10.09.1996 at about 9.15 a.m., while the petitioner was riding his van bearing Reg.No.TD-Y-8787 in Omalur-Salem Road, the lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-27-B-4527 belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, which was coming behind him, overtook the petitioner's van and as number of vehicles were continuously coming in the opposite direction, the petitioner was not able to give way to the 1st respondent for about one furlong, thereafter, the 1st respondent Lorry overtook the van of the petitioner and suddenly the Lorry driver stopped the vehicle without any signal and as such, the petitioner tempo van dashed on the back side of the Lorry resulting in the accident. The accident occurred only due to negligence of the 1st respondent Lorry driver and at that time, the petitioner was aged 42 years and by working as Tempo Driver was earning Rs.7500/- per month. In the accident stated above, the Petitioner suffered injuries in his left leg, fore head and in his mouth. After taking treatment in the Government Hospital, Salem, he took treatment in the Private Hospital and spent Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenses. Due to the injury suffered he is unable to carry on his normal avocation, resulting in loss of income to him. Hence, the Petitioner sought for compensation of Rs.2,55,000/- from the respondents viz., 1st respondent-owner of the vehicle and 2nd respondent-insurer, who are liable to pay compensation.

(3.) On the other hand, opposing the claim of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company with whom the 1st respondent Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-27-B-4527 was insured contends that the age, avocation and income of the petitioner as alleged in the petitioner is not true. The claim of the Petitioner about sustaining fracture in his right leg, tibia and fibula and his right hand is not true. The said Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-27-B-4527 does not belong to 1st respondent and the same was not insured with the 2nd respondent. The driver of the said lorry did not possess valid driving licence. The accident occurred only due to negligence of the petitioner himself and the police registered case against the petitioner in crime No.1462 of 1996 of Sooramangalam Police Station and the Van bearing Reg.No.TD-Y-8787 was insured with the 3rd respondent -Oriental Insurance company only. It is only the said insurance company/3rd respondent is liable to pay compensation. Thus, the 2nd respondent sought for dismissal of the Petition.