IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.02.2017 CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE S.VIMALA C.M.P.No.11023 of 2001 in C.M.A.No.SR89828 of 2000 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional No.2, 8 Esplande, P.o. Box No.26, UIL Building, III Floor, Chennai – 600 108. ... Petitioner ..vs..
1. Subramani
2. Minor Poongodi
3. Minor Gopal
4. Minor Sangeetha (Minors 2 to 4 are rep. by father Subramani)
5. K.Thirumalaiswamy
6. M/s.Chettinad Agencies Pvt. Ltd., 603, Anna Salai, Chennai.
7. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Division I, Sennimalai Road, Erode – 2. ... Respondents (R5 & R6 remained ex parte before the Tribunal) Prayer C.M.P.No.11023 of 2001 in C.M.A.No.SR89828 of 2000: Petition filed under Order 4 Rul 9(4) of A.S.Rules, praying to condone the delay of 109 days in re-presenting the C.M.A.No.SR89828 of 2000.
Prayer in C.M.A.No.SR89828 of 2000: Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.06.2000 made in M.C.O.P.No.830 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Erode.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan For Respondents : No appearance
ORDER
This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of Rs.3,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased, along with a petition to condone the delay of 109 days in representing the appeal.
2. It is a case where, the deceased Pappathy, aged 28 years, doing grinder stone cutting works and earning a sum of Rs.2,500/- p.m. died in an accident that took place on 11.01.1998. The accident took place on account of collision between the bus bearing Reg.No.TN33N 0432 and the lorry bearing Reg.No.TN01M 1951, which is insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. On 11.01.1998, at about 10.00 a.m., when the deceased Pappathy boarded the bus, the lorry, driven in a rash and negligent manner hit against the bus due to which the deceased, who was travelling in the bus got fatally injured and died.
3. The Insurance Company has disputed the manner of the accident allegedly had taken place on 11.01.1998 and contenting that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver. Therefore, the compensation requires to be interfered with.
4. Before the Tribunal, two claim petitions were filed by two different persons in respect of which a common order has been passed by the Tribunal. A perusal of the order reveals that when the claimant in both claim petitions let in evidence before the Tribunal alleging that the accident took place only on account of the negligent driving on the part of the lorry driver. In such a scenario, it is for the Insurance Company to have adduced rebuttal evidence disputing the evidence of the claimants. However, the insurance company has neither adduced any oral nor any documentary evidence to support their case. Moreover, the sketch filed by the investigating agency relating to the accident does not justify the case of the Insurance Company. Therefore, the contention that there was no negligence on the part of the lorry driver and hence, the appellant Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation cannot be accepted. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits.
5. No grounds much less substantial grounds having been made out by the appellants in this appeal, which has been filed with a petition to condone the delay, this Court is of the considered view that numbering the appeal by condoning the delay would be an exercise in futility, as the ultimate result would be the dismissal of the appeal at a later point of time. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay of 109 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the petition to condone the delay is dismissed and, consequently, the appeal SR is rejected.
27.02.2017 Index : Yes / No ogy/GLN To 1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court, Erode.
Dr.S.VIMALA, J.
ogy/GLN C.M.P.No.11023 of 2001 in C.M.A.No.SR89828 of 2000 27.02.2017