This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company against the award of Rs.6,64,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Sixty Four Thousand only) for the death of one J.Edwin Jeyadhas, aged about 45 years, a Chemist, working in UNIMASS Laboratory and a Siddha Practitioner, allegedly earning about Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), when he was riding his motorcycle on Madurai ? Dindigul main road from east to west direction, another motorcycle belonging to the fourth respondent insured with the appellant-Insurance Company driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler driven by the deceased. Therefore, the claim petition.
2. On contest, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent riding of the two wheeler insured with the appellant- Insurance Company and awarded a sum of Rs.6,64,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Sixty Four Thousand only) as compensation along with 9% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit with a default clause of imposing interest at 12% per annum.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/claimants 1 to 3.
4. The fourth respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte before the Tribunal and therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company has given up the fourth respondent.
5. Though the learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the accident occurred because of the deceased, the Tribunal based on the evidence of P.W.2 ? eyewitness and filing of Ex.P.1 ? F.I.R and Ex.P.3 ? charge sheet against the rider of the offending vehicle, rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of the two wheeler insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and therefore, the said finding is confirmed.
6. Another point which has been canvassed by the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the fourth respondent herein sold the offending vehicle to one Kamal Musthabha, who has not taken any insurance policy and hence, the claim petition is not maintainable against the appellant-Insurance Company. However, the Tribunal, taking note of the non- transfer of the Registration Certificate of the offending vehicle in the name of the alleged subsequent purchaser and lack of any evidence to show that the said Kamal Musthabha did not take any insurance policy, found that the appellant-Insurance Company did not produce any document to prove the contention that the offending vehicle was sold by the fourth respondent herein to Kamal Musthabha. Further, a person could be called as owner, only if the Registration Certificate stands in the name of that particular person. Admittedly, the appellant-Insurance Company did not prove that the Registration Certificate stood in the name of Kamal Musthabha.
7. One more contention is also raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the driving licence was not possessed by the rider of the two wheeler. Though the Tribunal has given a finding that R.W.2 ? witness on the side of the appellant-Insurance Company did not have any personal knowledge about the driving licence, the appellant-Insurance Company is duty bound to examine the officials of the Regional Transport Office to conclude that neither the driving licence was possessed by the rider nor effective valid driving licence was possessed by the rider of the offending vehicle.
8. When the burden of proof was not discharged by the appellant- Insurance Company, the Tribunal rightly found that there is no proof regarding the contention raised by the appellant-Insurance Company. The said finding given by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with and hence, the contention of the appellant-Insurance Company is rejected.
9. No contention is raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company with regard to the quantum of compensation and the only point raised is that the penalty interest at the rate of 12% per annum cannot be levied against the appellant-Insurance Company.
10. The Tribunal only awarded the interest at 9% per annum and if the award amount is not deposited within the period prescribed by the Tribunal and then, the penalty clause would be applicable and therefore, the Tribunal is right in putting that penalty clause and hence, the same is confirmed.
11. In the result
(i) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the same is dismissed;
(ii) The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount along with accrued interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till date of realisation and proportionate costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.901 of 2007, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum ? Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.2, Madurai, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;
(iii) On such deposit, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the respective share amounts of the respondents 1 to 3/claimants 1 to 3 to their respective Personal Savings Bank Account Numbers through RTGS/NEFT system, as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal, within a period of two weeks thereafter;
(iv) The respondents 1 to 3/claimants 1 to 3 are directed to submit their Account Details along with the copies of their passbooks to the Tribunal forthwith; and
(v) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum -
Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.2, Madurai.
2.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..