Liability of the insurer in a motor accident claim case is established based on the evidence presented and settlements made in connected claim petitions.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 31.03.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.220 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims (Principal Sub Court), Tenkasi.)

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 31.03.2011, passed in M.C.O.P.No.220 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims (Principal Sub Court), Tenkasi.

2. The appellant/insurer, who was directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,75,277/- with interest at 7.5% per annum to the first respondent/claimant for the disability suffered by him, consequent to an accident occurred on 28.05.2007, challenged the liability mulcted on it.

3. The case of the claimant is that on 28.05.2007, at about 02.30 am., the petitioner and his relatives, from Tirunelveli Railway Junction started for Velanganni in a Maruthi Omni Van bearing Registration No.TN-76- Z-5176 and when the vehicle was proceeding near TSR Nursery School, Maathankudi in Pudukkottai to Thanjavur Main Road at about 11.30 am., the Omni van driver had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and the vehicle at that time losing control had dashed against the tamarind tree situated on the right side of the road and as a result of which, the petitioner and others in the Omni Van had sustained serious injuries and that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Omni driver.

4. It is the further case of the claimant that the petitioner and others were admitted in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Pudukkottai and after first aid, the petitioner was admitted in Madurai Government Rajaji Hospital and after taking inpatient treatment for two days, he was admitted in the Apollo Hospital, Madurai; that the petitioner had taken inpatient treatment for 30 days in the Apollo Hospital; that the petitioner had undergone a surgery below the hip portion and plate was implanted; that the petitioner has also suffered other injuries all over his body and that the petitioner was not in a position to do any work as before.

5. The defence of the appellant/insurer is that the first respondent allowed to carry more persons in the Maruti Van than permitting capacity of passengers; that the first respondent''s driver was not having valid and effective driving license; that the accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent''s driver and that since the first respondent owner of the vehicle has violated the permit conditions and also the insurance policy conditions, the second respondent is not liable for the claim.

6. During enquiry, the claimant has examined himself as P.W.1 and one Jesline as P.W.2 and exhibited 20 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20. The appellant/insurer has examined one witness Thiru.Meganathan as R.W.1 and exhibited 11 documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.11.

7. The learned trial Judge, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, has passed the impugned judgment, dated 31.03.2011, directing the second respondent to pay compensation of Rs.4,75,277/ - with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to the claimant. Aggrieved by the said award, the insurer has come forward with the present appeal.

8. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that two other connected appeals were sent to Lok Adalat and in the Lok Adalat convened on 13.05.2023, awards were passed in C.M.A(MD)Nos.1260 and 1261 of 2014. He would further submit that the insurer has already settled five claims with respect to the accident occurred on 28.05.2007.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the insurance policy of the vehicle involved in the accident covers only five persons including the driver; that the appellant/insurer has already settl