Sree Meenakshi Scooter Agencies vs P. Karuppiah

Ms. V.M. Velumani, J.—The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.1999 in M.C.O.P.No.48 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Devakottai.

The appellant is the third respondent in M.C.O.P.No.48 of 1998. The first respondent filed M.C.O.P.No.48 of 1998 claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injury suffered by him in the accident took place on 02.04.1996. The vehicle involved in the accident belonged to the second respondent. The said vehicle was in the custody of the appellant. The third respondent is the mechanic of the appellant was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. According to the first respondent, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the third respondent, who is the mechanic of appellant and the vehicle was insured with the fourth respondent.

The appellant entered appearance through advocate, but did not file any counter. The fourth respondent filed counter statement denying its liability. The main contention of the fourth respondent is that the vehicle was not insured with the fourth respondent at the time of accident and it was insured with some other Insurance Company and the first respondent not made them as party to the claim petition.

The first respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and examined one Dr. Devakumar as P.W.2 and marked 10 documents as Exs.A1 to A10. The appellant did not examine any witness. The fourth respondent examined one Sankaranarayanan and marked Ex.R1.

The Tribunal after considering all the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the third respondent, who was the mechanic of the appellant. The Tribunal held that the vehicle in question was not insured with the fourth respondent. On such finding, the Tribunal held that the respondents 2 and 3 and appellant are liable to pay compensation to the first respondent.

As far as the compensation is concerned, the first respondent himself has admitted that there was no loss of earning capacity and income due to the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.35,000/-.

Against the said judgment and decree dated 30.04.1999, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is not the owner and the relationship was only bailor and bailee and the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for allowing the appeal.

Though notice served on the respondents 2 and 3 and their names were printed in the cause list, they have not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel.

The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 4 contended that the impugned order of the Tribunal is as per Law and there is no reason to set aside the same. The learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the compensation awarded is just and proper and the order of Tribunal may be confirmed.

The issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the appellant is liable to pay compensation. Before the Tribunal, the appellant appeared through advocate, but did not file any counter. The appellant also did not examine any witness and also not file any documents to show that the insurance company in which the vehicle of the second respondent was insured. The appellant has not let in any evidence to show as to how he is not liable to pay compensation. Admittedly, the vehicle was under the custody of the appellant and third respondent, who is the mechanic of the appellant was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The third respondent admitted the accident before the Criminal Court that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by him. The appellant and the respondents 2 and 3 did not let in any evidence contrary to evidence let in by the respondents 1 and 4. The Tribunal has appreciated the materials on record and oral evidence in proper perspective and held that the appellant, respondents 2 and 3 are liable to pay compensation. There is no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal and there is no reason warranting interference by this Court.

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.