The appellant must prove the validity of the insurance policy; lack of evidence shifted liability to the owner, absolving the insurer from responsibility.

JUDGMENT :

1. The owner of the vehicle is before this Court by filing this appeal aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal in and by which the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation to the claimants, viz., respondents 1 to 4 for the death of the deceased by holding that the policy at the hands of the owner is not one, issued by the insurer, viz., the 6^th respondent herein and, therefore, the insurer is not liable to compensate the claimants.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under :-

On 4.11.2015 at about 20.00 hours, while the deceased was riding his two wheeler bearing Regn. No.TN-24-F-6014, it is alleged that the tractor bearing Regn. No.TN-24-Y-4507 was parked in the middle of the road without any indicator light or any sort of signal, thereby obstructing the free flow of traffic, due to which the two wheeler driven by the deceased dashed with the tractor in which the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Though the deceased was initially taken to the Government Hospital, Hosur, thereafter, the deceased was sought to be moved to a private hospital for better medical management, but enroute the deceased breathed his last. A case in crime No.415/2015 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle u/s 279 and 304 (A) IPC. As the death of the deceased had robbed the livelihood of the family, the claimants, viz., the respondents 1 to 4 herein, who are the wife and children of the deceased filed a claim petition in MCOP No.921/2018 claiming a compensation of Rs.50 Lakhs for the death of the deceased.

3. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined two witnesses as P.W.s 1 and 2 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-18. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1, the law officer of the insurer, viz., the 6^th respondent herein and R.W.2, the driver of the offending vehicle were examined and Exs.R-1 to R-7 were marked. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal, while held that the accident had happened due to the rash and negligence of the tractor-trailer, which was parked in the centre of the road and while awarded compensation, however, absolved the insurer from paying the compensation by holding that the policy produced by the owner of the tractor was not issued by the insurer, viz., the 6^th respondent herein and there was no valid policy for the tractor as the policy produced was a fake policy and, therefore, mulcted the responsibility for payment of compensation on the owner of the tractor, viz., the appellant herein. Aggrieved by the said award directing the owner of the tractor to pay the compensation, the appellant, who is the owner of the tractor, has filed the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal failed to note that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the deceased, as the tractor-trailer belonging to the appellant was parked on the left side of the road along with a flashing danger light indicating a parked vehicle. However, without following the rules of driving the deceased had hit the parked trailer and sustained injuries and, therefore, the negligence cannot be fastened on the appellant.

5. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 coupled with the other materials clearly indicate that it is the deceased, who dashed his two wheeler against the parked trailer and, therefore, the act of negligence is fully on the deceased and, therefore, the appellant is not liable to compensate the claimants.

6. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the manner of the accident clearly reveal that the deceased is a tort feasor and, therefore, not entitled to any compensation, when it was the clear case that the tractor was parked and that the two wheeler had dashed against the parked tractor, which could only lead to the inference that the rash and negligent driving of the deceased was the cause for the a