Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

L15Z11012288, was already insured by a Insurance Company called Bajaj Allianz, vehicle Insurance Policy No.HBA/00212716, valid till 24.06.2015. Hence, there is no liability on him.
d) The driver having a valid driving licence, i.e., D.L No.TN22 20080007535, which is valid till 19.06.2028. Hence, he No.2 is no where liable.
e) The total claim made by the Petitioner of Rupees 25,00,000/- is totally exaggeration and unreasonable without any basis. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. Loss of Estate Rs. 30,000-00
8. Transportation of dead body Rs. 5,000-00 TOTAL Rs. 21,34,970-00

32. In all, the Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rupees 21,34,970/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the above said sum from the date of petition till payment.

33. While answering Issue No.2, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, the entire negligence is on the part of the Respondent No.2, who was a Driver-Cum-R.C. Owner of the offending Honda City Car bearing Registration No.TN-22-CQ-3786 in the commission of the said road traffic accident and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased in the commission of the said road traffic accident and the offending Honda City Car bearing Registration No.TN-22-CQ-3786 as well as the Respondent No.2, who was a Driver-Cum-R.C. Owner of the offending Car, are very much involved in the said road traffic accident, wherein, the deceased had sustained severe head injury and died during the course of treatment at Hospital due to the said accidental injuries. The Petitioners in the cause title of the petition have mentioned that, the Respondent No.1 is an Insurer of the offending Honda City Car bearing Registration No.TN-22-CQ-3786 and its Policy No.HBA/22212716 and valid from 25.06.2014 to 24.06.2015. The Respondent No.1 in its Written Statement has clearly admitted that, it has issued Policy No.OG-15-1501-1801-00011151 for the period between 25.06.2014 to 24.06.2015 in respect of Honda City Car bearing Registration No.TN-22-CQ-3786 in favour of Mr. Karthik, i.e., the Respondent No.2 and the liability of it is subject to the terms, conditions, exceptions and limitations thereof and the confirmation of the compliance of Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, 1938. The Respondent No.2 in his Written Statement has clearly stated that, his vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-22-CQ-3786, i.e., Chassis Number :

MAKGM655DEN003652 and Engine No: L15Z11012288, was already insured by a Insurance Company called Bajaj Allianz, Vehicle Insurance Policy No.HBA/00212716, valid till 24.06.2015 and hence, there is no liability on him. From this material evidence, which is very much available on record, it is made crystal clear that, at the time of accident, the Respondent No.1 was an Insurer and the Respondent No.2 was a R.C. Owner of the Honda City Car bearing Registration No.TN-22-CQ-3786 and its Insurance Policy was valid, which covers the date of accident. There is no allegation leveled by the Investigating Officer in Ex.P.8 Charge Sheet as against the driver of the offending Honda City Car bearing Registration No.TN-22-CQ-3786 that, he was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive such class of offending Car at the time of accident. The violation of the terms and conditions of the admitted Insurance Policy by the Respondent No.2 is not proved by the Respondent No.1. Under such circumstances, the Respondent No.1 being an Insurer and the Respondent No.2 being a R.C. Owner of the Honda City Car bearing Registration No.TN-22-CQ-3786, are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation and interest to the Petitioners. Since, the Respondent No.1 is an Insurer, it shall indemnify the Respondent No.2. In view of the above said reasons and findings on Issues, the principles enunciated in the decisions cited by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners are aptly applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Hence, Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.