G.KANNAN Vs. K.MOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 15.12.2003 made in M.C.O.P.No.3074 of 2000 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court - V, Chennai.

(2.) The case of the appellant is that on 21.11.1995, he was travelling 1st respondent's van bearing registration no.TN04B 3515. When the van was proceeding in Kamarajar Salai, near Gandhi Statue, chennai, the owner cum driver of the van / 1st respondent drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden brake, therefore, van lost its control and was over turned. In consequence, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted at Royapettah Hospital and thereafter, he was sent to Stanley Medical College Hospital. At the time of accident, he was aged 26 years and prior to the accident, he was working as a loadman in Uthaman Roadways and was earning Rs.100/- per day and if he does more work he could earn more money. Since he had sustained grievous injuries in the accident, he filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of Motors Vehicle Act and Rule 3 of M.A.C.T.Rules, against the respondents who are the owner-cum-driver of the van, which made accident and the Insurance company, in which the vehicle was insured respectively, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Additional District Judge [Fast Track Court V] Chennai, claiming Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation under various heads.

(3.) Denying the allegations of the appellant/claimant, the 2nd respondent / Insurance Company filed a counter affidavit before the Tribunal, contending that the appellant has to prove that the van was possessing valid insurance at the time of accident and has to prove the employment of the appellant. Further, the counter affidavit proceeded to state that the complaint has been placed after five months from the date of accident and has denied the age, occupation and income of the appellant. It is further averred that the accident has not been intimated by the 1st respondent. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition filed by the claimant.