A.S.Venkatachalamoorthy, J.: National Insurance Company Limited, being aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madras, in M.C.O.P.No.435 of 1992, has preferred the above appeal.

2. The first respondent herein filed a petition in M.C.O.P.No.435 of 1992 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madras, under Secs.140 and 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 3 of the MACT Rules, praying the Tribunal to fix the compensation payable to him at Rs.1,00,000 and to further hold that the owner and insurer of the vehicle in question viz., lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-Y-3839 are vicariously liable to compensate him for the injuries sustained by him.

The first respondent herein, as petitioner, has stated in the petition filed by him that when he was riding in his scooter bearing Registration No.TMA-1033 in EVR Salari from east to west, the lorry in question viz., TN-28-Y-3839, owned by the first respondent in the claim petition, which was also coming in the same direction, driven in a rash and also coming in the same direction, as a result of which, he was thrown off the scooter and sustained grievous injuries.

The first respondent herein claimed a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000 on various heads.

3. The appellant herein, as 2nd respondent in the claim petition, filed a counter, raising various pleas. It is contended therein that the policy produced is a forged one and that in fact, no premium was received by the Insurance Company for the insurance policy and hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the injured. A further contention has also been raised to the affect that the accident had taken place only due to the fault of the first respondent herein, who was riding in his motor cycle. A specific averment is made that the driver of the lorry drove the vehicle slowly and cautiously. The appellant/2nd respondent also put the first respondent/claimant to strict proof of the injuries sustained by him and eligibility to claim such a huge compensation.

4. Before the Tribunal, the injured/first respondent herein examined himself and also examined the Doctors to substantiate his case and various exhibits were also marked. The Insurance Company in turn examined its Divisional Manger, Administrative Officer and also one of its staff. The Tribunal, after elaborately considering the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident took place only because of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, belonging to the 2nd respondent herein. The Tribunal further found that the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the victim as insurer of the lorry. With regard to quantum, a sum of Rs.44,000, carrying interest thereon at 12% p.a. was fixed by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the above appeal has been filed.

5. It has to be noted that the only point taken is that the aid vehicle was not insured with the appellant/Insurance Company and that the act of fraud committed by an agent cannot create any liability on the employer viz., the Insurance Company.

6. The vehicle that is involved in the accident is the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-Y-3839. The said lorry is owned by one Gurusamy, who is the 2nd respondent herein and first respondent in the MACTOP. The Tribunal has given a finding that the accident took place at about 1.30 p.m. on 12.2.1992 in E.V.R. Periyar Road, when the lorry hit the scooter bearing Registration NO.TMA-1033, driven by the first respondent herein viz., the claimant, and in which the latter sustained injuries. The further finding by the Tribunal is that at the relevant time the said lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner. It has to be pointed out that the said findings stand and those have not been questioned by any of the parties to the proceedings.

7. The only question to be considered is, whether the defence of the Insurance Company can be upheld. The accident was on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document