UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SIVARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following are the allegations found in both the claim petitions in brief.Sivaraman was working as lorry driver under the second respondent and getting a monthly wages of Rs.4,000/-, On 23.02.1999, at about 2.00 a.m., while he was driving the lorry belonging to the second respondent, near Pulavanoor Vallalar Nagar, a vehicle was coming from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and to avoid collision with the said vehicle, the first respondent took the lorry to the left side and in that process, it hit against the back side of the stationed lorry at the road. In the accident,Sivaraman and one Savarimuthu who is the first respondent in CMA No.1017 of 2004, an alternative driver sustained injuries. Both of them were admitted to Panruti Government Hospital. THE said Savarimuthu also was getting Rs.4,000/- per month by working as a driver. Hence, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is prayed for in each petition as compensation.

(2.) IN the counter filed by the appellant INsurance Company, the following are stated.The tanker lorry involved in the said accident was not insured with the appellant. The lorry did not have a valid licence. The age, income and avocation of the claimants are denied. They have claimed exorbitant compensation. The first respondent drove the lorry without proper care and caution and had himself dashed the same against another lorry and had caused the accident. Only due to the fault of the petitioner alone, the accident took place and hence this respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the petition shall be dismissed.

(3.) AS far as the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents are concerned, first of all, the court has to say whether the negligence to cause accident lies on the saidSivaraman for which a careful scrutiny of the evidence is necessary. In his petition, he has stated that on seeking a vehicle coming from the opposite side in a rash manner, he took the lorry to the left side and hence it hit the back side of the stationed vehicle. In his evidence, he has stated that since the head light of the vehicles which were coming from the opposite directions were bright, he turned the lorry to the left side and unexpectedly it dashed against the back side of a stationed lorry.