This appeal has been preferred against the decree and judgment passed in M.C.O.P.No.124 of 1994, dated 18.10.2002, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V), Chengalpattu, dismissing the claim petition of the appellants herein.
2. The facts of the case are as follows;
The claimants namely 1) Dakshnamoorthy and 2) Rajamani W/o of the first claimant have filed the claim for the death of their son in Motor Accident, which happened on 22.10.1992. On 20.10.1992, at about 15.30 hours, while the deceased was levelling the mud at Triveni Academy, the driver of a sand laden Tractor-Trailor driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and to stop the vehicle, put the tipper switch and suddenly the trailor was upset and smashed the deceased on the head and resultingly the deceased died on the spot. The first respondent, being the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent being the insurer of the Tractor-Trailor bearing registration No. TN-21-5684 and TN-21-5685 respectively are jointly and vigorously liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. The claimants further stated that at the time of accident, their son Ramesh's age was 22 years and he was earning RS.1500/- per month. Both the claimants are parents of the deceased and so they have claimed compensation as legal heir of the deceased
3. The second respondent/United India Insurance Company Limited has filed counter statement and took a stand that the claim petition is highly false and a vexatious one and also denied the date of accident. As per claim form submitted by the first respondent, the accident occurred on 26.02.1993 at 07.30 P.M. At Kuppumudali Street, Sriperumbathur. Further, the first respondent had stated that the shed suddenly fell and damaged the tractor and trailor. The place, date and time of the accident is entirely different from that stated in the claim petition of the claimants. Further, the date of accident was 22.10.1992 as per the claim and the policy was only taken on 23.10.1992 at 11.20 a.m. Therefore, at the time of accident, i.e. at the relevant period, there was no insurance coverage for the said accident vehicle.
4. The first respondent, owner of the said vehicle remained ex-parte.
5. The learned Tribunal framed three issues namely 1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent vehicle?
2) Whether the second respondent/insurance company is liable to pay compensation? and
3) What is the fair and reasonable compensation that the petitioners are entitled to receive?
6. On the side of the claimants/appellants three witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW3 and two exhibits were marked as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 namely the first information report and the postmortem certificate. On the side of the respondent/insurance company, one Nithiyanandam was examined as RW1 on behalf of the insurance company and one document was marked as Ex.R1 i.e. the copy of the insurance policy.
7. PW1 in his evidence has stated that while his son, the deceased Ramesh was levelling the mud in Tirveni Academy on 22.10.1992 at about 15.30 hours, the driver of the first respondent had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and to stop the vehicle, the driver put the tipper switch and suddenly the trailor was upset and as such the accident had happened.
8. PW2, Nithiyanandam deposed in his evidence that while he was working with the deceased Ramesh as loadman in the said Tractor, the accident had happened and he had seen that the tractor fell on the head of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased died. PW3, one Suryakumar deposed that while he was maintaining the work of construction of compound walls in Triveni Academy, he was witnessed the said accident. One Munirathianm went to the police station to report the same. The Manimangalam Police registered a case in Cr.No.676 of 1992 on an alleged offence under
Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
9. After considering the evidence of PW2 and PW3, the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent driver. The learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal also found that there was no insurance coverage at the time of the accident i.e on 22.10.1992, but the policy was only taken on 23.10.1992 at about 11.20 a.m. Admittedly, no particulars have been given by the claimants side regarding the insurance coverage of the vehicle involved in the accident. RW1, one Mr.Devananthan deposed that he is working as Deputy Manager in the Insurance Company and he stated that the Tractor and Trailor bearing registration numbers TN-21-5684 and TN-21-5685 respectively were insured with the insurance company on 23.10.1992. He also marked copy of the insurance policy as Ex.R1. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the vehicle was not insured with the insurance company at the time of accident and as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. Further, the learned Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the claimants are entitled to receive compensation only from the first respondent and that too only after they proved that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Mr.Ramesh. But, the Claimants have failed to produce the legal heir certificate before the Tribunal and establish that they are the legal heirs of the deceased and as such the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.
10. This Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, finds that it is clearly established that the claimants son, deceased Ramesh died due to motor accident which happened on 22.10.1992, due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent driver. At the relevant time of accident, the first respondent vehicle was not covered by insurance policy with the second respondent company. So, both the respondents are not jointly liable to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, but the first respondent alone is vigorously liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Resultantly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed and this Court direct the first respondent/Vaduvammal, W/o.Munusamy to deposit compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only)to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.124 of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribnunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court -V), Chingleput at Tiruvallur, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The claimants, at the time of getting the compensation from the said Court, after deposit of claim amount, should produce the legal heir certificate, after recording the evidence of issuing authority of legal heir certificate to enable them to get the compensation. Parties are directed to bear their own cost in this appeal.
16.09.2009 Index:Yes Internet:Yes JIKR To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court -V) Chinglepet at Tiruvellore.
C.S.KARNAN,J JIKR PRE DELIVERY JUDGMENT IN C.M.A.No.688 of 2005 16.09.2009