Claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are required to prove the negligence of the respondent's vehicle driver to be entitled to compensation.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer in C.M.A.No.3485 of 2017: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2017 in M.C.O.P.No.4473 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

C.M.A.No.3486 of 2017: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2017 in M.C.O.P.No.40 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.)

1. These appeals filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the dismissal of their claim petitions by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Judge, Small Causes Court at Chennai.

2. On 01.08.2008 at about 06.30 p.m., a Maruthi Omni Van bearing Reg.No.TN 07 L 9884 was hit by a Canter Van bearing Reg.No.TN 07 M 4518 near Putru Koil in E.C.Road. The driver of the Maruthi Omni Van R.Gopalakrishnan and a minor boy by name Sreejeeth travelling in the Maruthi Van sustained injury and were taken to Chettinad Hospital & Research Institute, Kelambakkam, Kanchi District. Later, they were shifted to Apollo Speciality Hospital, Chennai. The driver of the Maruthi Van Gopalakrishnan filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.4473 of 2010 claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- and the minor boy Sreejeeth, who accompanied in the Maruthi van, filed claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.40 of 2011 claiming compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- against the owner and its insurer.

3. The insurance company filed counter contesting both the claim petitions on the ground that the canter van had no valid insurance policy and its driver had no valid licence. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. Further, the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Omni van driver, who is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.4473 of 2010. Case was registered against him for rash and negligent driving by E-1, Mamallapuram Police Station. Since he is the tortfeasor, he is not entitled for any compensation. In the counter filed in M.C.O.P.No.40 of 2011 preferred by the minor boy Sreejeeth, the Insurance Company contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Maruthi Van, in which the claimant was travelling as a passenger. Since the canter van had no valid insurance coverage and its driver had no valid driving licence, there is no responsibility on the part of the insurance company to pay compensation or to indemnify the owner of the canter van.

4. Both the petitions were tried together by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 3 witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants and 14 exhibits were marked. On behalf of the respondent, Senior Assistant of the 2nd respondent Insurance Company was examined as RW-1. 5 exhibits were marked. The owner of the canter van remained exparte.

5. The Tribunal framed the following points for consideration:

(1) Whether the petitioner in O.P.No.4473 of 2010 and petitioner in O.P.No.40/2011 have sustained injuries in the road accident on 01.08.2009 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the canter van bearing Reg.No.TN-07-M-4518?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation, if so, from whom? And to what extent the petitioner in O.P.No.4473/2010 and petitioner in O.P.No.40/2011 are entitled to?

6. The Tribunal took note of the fact that First Information Report was against the driver of the Maruthi Omni Van R.Gopalakrishnan and he was charged for offence under Sections 297 and 337 of IPC in Crime No.332 of 2009, which was later it was altered into Sections 297, 337 and 304(A) of IPC since one of the victim by name Karthik, S/o Vijayakumar died. Therefore, held the canter van driver was not at fault and neither the owner of the canter van, nor its insurance company liable to pay any compensation.

7. The