L NARAYANARAJ Vs. MEENAKSHIAMMAL POLYTECHNIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2013 made in MCOP.No.92 of 2006 on the file of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram, which was originally filed by the injured Petitioner.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their litigative status before the Tribunal. The case of the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.92 of 2006 is that on 10.12.2015 at about 11.30 a.m., as the petitioner was proceeding in a two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-23-Q-6572 as pillion rider in Kamarajar Street, towards Kancheepuram bus stand, the 1st respondent Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-09-U-4537 driven in a rash and negligent manner came at high speed driving behind the two wheeler in which the petitioner was proceeding and dashed against the Motor cycle resulting in grievous injuries to the petitioner-L.Narayanraj. According to the Petitioner, the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the 1st respondent Lorry Driver. It is further averred by the petitioner that he was aged 48 years and he was carrying on rice bran business, earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the injuries suffered in the accident, it resulted in amputation of his left leg below knee and dislocation of left shoulder. The petitioner was unable to carry on his business as he used to prior to the accident. This has resulted in loss of income to the petitioner. He has suffered permanent disability. Hence, the petitioner seeks a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

(3.) On the other hand, opposing the claim of the Petitioner, by filing counter, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, contended that the accident did not occur in the manner as alleged by the petitioner. The accident occurred due to collision of two vehicles, but the petitioner has impleaded only the owner and insurer of one vehicle and as such, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. At the time of the accident, the 1st respondent vehicle driver was not having valid driving licence. As such, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The claim of the Petitioner about his age, avocation and income are denied. The claim of the petitioner is exorbitant and the same is not substantiated by any documents. Thus, the 2nd respondent sought for dismissal of the Petition.