NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ELLAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE civil miscellaneous appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Judge), Hosur dated 15.04.1997 made in MACT OP Nos.226, 264, 263, 240, 239, 430, 265, 432, 271, 227 and 431 of 1996 respectively.Common JudgmentThe allegations as regards the accident, as contained in all the petitions, in a nutshell, are as follows:-On 21.06.1991, the petitioner and others were travelling by a tempo bearing Registration No.TN-29 Y-1724 towards Thenkanikottai, Kelamangalam-Parandur Road, near Koottur diversion road, at about 9.00 a.m, since the driver of the tempo vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, it capsized resulting in the accident by means of which this petitioner and others got injured and some individuals died. Only due to the negligence on the part of the driver, the accident occurred. The first respondent in the claim petition is owner-cum-driver of the vehicle and the second respondent is the insurance company which has insured the vehicle of the first respondent, hence both the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The allegations as to the nature of injuries, avocation and probable monthly income, compensation in various petitions are denied.

(2.) IN the counter filed by the first respondent, the following are stated:-This respondent possessed valid license to drive tempo vehicle and duly insured the vehicle with the second respondent. There was no negligence on the part of this respondent. Due to unavoidable circumstances, the accident took place. Since he had driven the vehicle cautiously, he was able to save so many lives. At any angle, the insurance company alone is responsible to compensate the victims. The claims found in claim petitions are excessive and hence the petitions have to be dismissed.

(3.) THE learned Tribunal has accepted the oral evidence on record with regard to the accident as well as the possession of licence by the first respondent. It has recorded a finding that since the insurance company has deposited a portion of compensation as interim relief as per the order of the Tribunal in MCOP No.431/1996 and 432/1996, it could not be stated that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. It is further observed that by conduct, the insurance company has agreed to deposit the amount and so it cannot refuse to pay compensation.