ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD Vs. THIRUGNASAMBANDAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is one of the similar cases we have seen in dealing with the compensation sought for pursuant to the accident occurred. As we find that the Tribunals are committing the same error over and again, we deem it appropriate to pass this order so that the Tribunals across the State of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry would not repeat the same mistakes that are being committed.

(2.) The vehicle in question bearing Regn. No.TN 68 Q 8067 is a two wheeler, which has been registered in the name of the wife of the respondent/claimant. The policy concerned is a owner cum driver policy. The case of the respondent himself is that he was riding the two wheeler. An F.I.R. has been given by the wife of the respondent in Crime No.8 of 2016 dated 04.02.2016 stating that the vehicle bearing Regn. No.PY 01 AR 9355 was responsible for the accident. This vehicle appears to be an uninsured one.

(3.) Under those circumstances, the respondent/claimant, without impleading either the driver or owner of the aforesaid vehicle, which has not been insured, made a claim seeking compensation with the appellant alone as the respondent. This is on the premise that the wife of the respondent being the owner of the two wheeler driven by him has got the vehicle insured with the appellant. The Tribunal accordingly fixed the negligence on the part of the respondent and thereafter fastened the liability on the appellant.