(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Decree and Judgment made in MCOP No.287 of 2011 on 28.08.2014, by IV Judge of Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the 2nd respondent in the claim petition against the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VI Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai in MCOP No.287 of 2011 dated 28.08.2014.
2. The 1st respondent is the claimant. The case of the claimant is that on 03.04.2010, the claimant was riding his two wheeler and at about 13.50 hours near Arunachala Achari Street, Chennai, the offending vehicle which was also a two wheeler was driven in a rash and negligent manner and it dashed on the two wheeler which was ridden by the claimant and as a result, the claimant fell down and sustained serious injuries. It is under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal.
3. The appellant who was the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal did not contest the case and remained ex-parte.
4. The 3rd respondent Insurance Company filed a counter and took a stand that the Insurance Policy stands in the name of the appellant and whereas, the Registration Certificate stands in the name of the 1st respondent and therefore, the 1st and 2nd respondents were liable to pay the compensation.
5. The Tribunal, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the 1st respondent in the claim petition who was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident.
6. Having rendered the above finding, the Tribunal fixed the total compensation at Rs.2,87,000/- under various heads as follows:
| Compensation awarded under the head | Amount (in Rs.) |
| Medical Expenses | 5,000 |
| Disability of 15% at the rate of Rs.3000 per percentage | 45,000 |
| Loss of Income | 40,000 |
| Transportation | 10,000 |
| Extra Nourishment | 10,000 |
| Attender Charges | 25,000 |
| Damages to clothes | 2,000 |
| Loss of Amenities | 25,000 |
| Pain and Sufferings | 25,000 |
| Loss of Expectation of Life | 1,00,000 |
| Total | 2,87,000 |
8. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the 2nd respondent in the claim petition on the ground that the 2nd respondent was not the owner of the vehicle and that the 1st respondent in the claim petition alone was the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have made the 1st and 2nd respondents in the claim petition jointly and severally liable and permitted the Insurance Company to recover the compensation amount from the 1st and 2nd respondents in the claim petition.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent.
10. In the considered view of this Court, the 1st respondent is the owner of the vehicle as per the RC Book and the 1st and 2nd respondents in the claim petition ought to have informed about the transfer of the vehicle, to the Insurance Company. Since it was not done, the insurance policy was standing in the name of the 2nd respondent/appellant. In view of the same, the liability was fastened on the appellant/2nd respondent also.
11. It is now too well settled that the owner of the vehicle alone must be fastened with the liability and admittedly in this case it is the owner/1st respondent who had driven the vehicle and caused the accident. The pay and recover was ordered by the Tribunal only on the ground that the 1st respondent did not possess a valid driving licence. In view of the same, the appellant ought not to have been made liable.
12. In the light of the above discussion, the liability that was fastened against the appellant by the Tribunal is hereby set aside. The compensation shall be paid by the Insurance Company to the claimant and it can be recovered from the 1st respondent in the claim petition. The appellant is exonerated from the liability.
13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed in the above terms. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.