The Branch Manager vs Radhika on 21 April, 2015
23.In the case on hand, PW2 (Govindaraj) is the complainant and only
in his behest, the FIR was registered which has been marked as Ex.P1 before
the Tribunal. As seen from the FIR, it is clear that there was no presence of the
goods at the time of the accident on 16.03.2012. The FIR (Ex.P1) is also part
of the claim petition No.762 of 2012 as seen from clause 9 of the said claim
petition. However, the complainant (PW2) has made a contradictory statement
in his deposition before the Tribunal stating that he and the deceased were
returning in the goods vehicle along with the marriage articles belonging to the
owner and had acted as owner's representatives when the accident happened
which resulted in the death of Raman. This Court is of the considered view
that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rattani case referred
to supra is squarely applicable to the facts of this case also and the decision
relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants in the case of Royal
14/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.66 of 2016
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. D.Gunasekaran and Others has
no bearing for the facts of the instant case as in that case the complaint was
given by a third party who did not travel in the goods vehicle at the time of the
accident.