This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 11.07.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1113 of 2004 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.II), Tirunelveli in so far as allowing the second respondent to file execution proceedings to recover the amount payable to the first respondent by the second respondent.
2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:
It is the case of an accident that took place on 29.01.2004 at about 4.15 p.m. The claimant was travelling as a pillion rider in a Bajaj Motor Cycle bearing registration No.TN 69 Z 6594 from Kalakadu to Tirunelveli for his business purpose. When the motor cycle was reaching in front of Mallimal Junction Wine Shop on the Pettai-Tirunelveli Town main road, at the time, another Yamaha Motor Cycle bearing registration No.TN 72 Z 7907 belonging to the appellant / first respondent without observing traffic rules came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, in which the claimant was travelling. As a result of which, the claimant sustained bone fractures over the right leg and admitted in various hospitals as inpatient. The police has also registered a case against the driver of the said vehicle in Crime No.46 of 2004 and fine amount was paid in S.T.C.No.741 of 2004 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tirunelveli. The claimant filed a petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.1113 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.II), Tirunelveli, claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation.
3.The first respondent / appellant herein and the second respondent Insurance Company filed their separate Counter affidavits stating that the negligence is not on the part of the driver of the first respondent vehicle and the accident happened due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle, in which the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider. They denied the disability and stated that the claim amount is excessive one. It is also stated that the driver of the said vehicle did not possess any valid licence. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
4.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, two witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and 10 documents viz., Exs.P.1 to P.10 were marked and on the side of the respondents, two witnesses viz., R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and five documents viz., Exs.R1 to R5 were marked.
5.The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and arguments of the counsel for the claimant and respondents and also appreciating the evidence on record, directed the second respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- with interest and costs and also permitted the second respondent to recover the same from the first respondent by filing E.P. Against which, the appellant has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
6.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Insurance Company has not send any notice to the driver and also they did not take any steps. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that they sent a notice to the owner as well as the driver. The owner has received the said notice and acknowledgement card was also produced and the same was marked as Exs.R.2 and R.3. Exs.R.4 and R.5 are the returned covers and the same were filed before the Tribunal.
7.The learned counsel for the appellant/ owner of the vehicle would submit that the evidence has not been taken into account and the liability on the appellant is not correct and the driver's driving licence was not produced before the Tribunal and in the absence of the same, the Tribunal has come to the wrong conclusion and fixed the liability on the owner of the vehicle and hence, the same is not correct.
8.To prove his case, the appellant ought to have submitted all the relevant documents in the absence of any document to prove that the appellant driver has valid driving licence, the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion and fixed the liability on the owner and accordingly directed the Insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimant and then recover the same from the owner. Hence this Court finds no merits in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.
9.Since the appellant has not challenged the quantum of compensation, this Court is not inclined to interpret / analyse that aspect.
10.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award dated 11.07.2007 made in M.C.O.P.No.1113 of 2004 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.II), Tirunelveli, is hereby confirmed in so far as the relief sought for herein is concerned. If the entire award amount with interest and costs as awarded by the Tribunal has already been deposited by the Insurance company, then the second respondent / Insurance company is permitted to recover the same, from the appellant/ first respondent by way of filing Execution Petition. No costs.
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.II), Tirunelveli.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.