The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the owner and the insurance company of the lorry involved in the accident to pay compensation to the claimant under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/third respondent against the Award and Decree dated 10.10.2005, made in M.C.O.P.No.739 of 2004 , on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional Sub court), Coimbatore, awarding a compensation amount of Rs.5,19,218/- with 7.5% interest per annum, from the date of filing petition till the date of payment of compensation.

2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III Additional Sub court), Coimbatore. in M.C.O.P.No.739 of 2004, the appellant /United India Insurance Corporation Limited, Salem has filed this appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal.

3. The short facts of the case are as follows:

On 03.12.2002, at about 12.50 p.m., the petitioner was riding TVS 50 Motor Cycle bearing registration No.TN-38-7683 slowly, observing all traffic rules, on the Avinashi Road. When nearing the petrol Bunk, and Hope College, a lorry bearing registration No.TCF-5679 coming from behind, from West to East direction at a hectic speed and uncontrollably dashed against the Motor Cycle, resulting in the petitioner sustaining grievous injuries. Immediately after the said accident, he was rushed to the P.S.G. Hospital at Coimbatore for treatment and at Christian Medical College, Vellore, wherein he had taken treatment for over 60 days as in-patient and had undergone operation for treatment. The petitioner further submitted that at the time of the said accident he was a business man dealing in the business of commission agency in the area of yarn and old textile machines. He was also manufacturing yarn under conversion Agreement. As such he was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-per month, at the time of the said accident he was aged about 36 years old. The petitioner further submitted that in the said accident a Criminal case was registered by T.I.W (East), Police Station, Crime No.311 of 2002, under sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C as against the driver of the lorry. The petitioner further submitted that the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. The said lorry was insured with the second respondent Insurance Company. As such the owner of the lorry and Insurance company are jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.17,00,000/-as compensation with accrued interest against the respondents.

4. The third respondent has filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition, stating that the respondent does not admit the alleged cause and course of the accident. The petitioner has suppressed the real fact and filed this petition inventing an imaginary cause and course with a view to substantiate the claim. The third respondent further submitted in the counter statement that the first respondent was driving the vehicle by observing all traffic rules and regulations. The vehicle was stopped by the driver to get the signal near Hope College in front of the Petrol bunk. At that time the petitioner came rashly and negligently at high speed, on his TVS 50 vehicle at the left side of the stationary vehicle and dashed against the lorry, as such the accident had happened. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, the accident had happened. Further the respondent submitted that the claimants age, income, and occupation are also denied. The third respondent further submitted that as the owner of the vehicle is set ex-parte, the third respondent is entitled to take all the defences available to him under section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act, for which a separate petition is filed. The respondent further stated that the claim amount is excessive. The third respondent further submitted that the claim petition is an imaginary one. Further, there was no such accident which happened as alleged by the petitioner. In the said accident, the petitioner has sustained only simple injuries. The