III SCC, Chennai MCOP No.
5537 of 2005
Before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(In the III Court of Small Causes, Chennai)
Present: Tmt. K. Jyothi, B.Sc, M.L.,
Wednesday the 30th day of April 2025
Motor Accidents Claims Original Petition No.6803 of 2016
CNR NO : TNCH09-002700-2005
1.Velayee(died)
W/o. Late Rangasamy
2. Girija Vedamani
D/o. Late Rangasamy
3. Kiruupebagaran
S/o. Late Rangasamy
All are Residing at:
No. Aakkanur village and post
Thittakudi Taluk
Cuddalore. … petitioners
-Vs-
1. Babu
95, Malligai Street,
AmbalNagar
Porur,
Chennai – 600 116.
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondents.
Division 10,
Flat No.101,106 N.1 BMC House
Cannought place,
New Delhi – 110 001.
This petition is coming up before me for final hearing on 22.04.2025 in the
presence of M/s. P. Nagaraj, M. Jeyashree & A. Vivek, Counsels appearing for the
petitioners and the 1st respondent was called absent and set exparte and Mr. R.
Ravichandran, Counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent and upon hearing the
arguments on both sides and upon examining the witnesses and upon perusing the
Page No. 1 of 6
III SCC, Chennai MCOP No.5537 of 2005
entire records of the case, having stood over for consideration till this date, this
Tribunal pronounces the following:-
ORDER
1. This petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
Rule 3 of the M.A.C.T., rules, by the legal heirs of the dependent mother of the
deceased Krishnamoorthy, S/o. Late Rangasamy who sustained fatal injuries in a
motor accident seeking for compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-.
2. The averments made in the petition are briefly as follows:-
On 15.03.2005 at above 23.00hrs, when the 1 st petitioner’s son Mr.
Krishnamoorthy along with one Ramasamy walking from west side to eastern side at
100ft Road, near SBOA School the 1st respondent’s vehicle Maruthi Wagan bearing
Regd.No TN 22 AA 8940 driven by the respondent driver cum owner in rash and
negligent manner and endangering the public safety hit the 1 st petitioner’s son and
caused death on the occurrence place. The claim petition was originally filed by the
1st petitioner who died on 4.04.2008. And proceeded by her legal heirs the 2 nd and 3rd
Petitioners. The driver cum owner of the Maruthi Wagon car bearing Regd.No TN 22
AA 8940 is responsible for the accident. The first respondent Babu being the owner
of the car and 2nd respondent being Insurer both are the jointly and vicariously liable
to pay compensation to the petitioners with cost and interest from the date of accident
to till the date of realization.
3. The first respondent was called absent and set exparte.
4. The averments made in the counter filed by the second respondent are briefly
as follows:-
The respondent denies the various allegations contained in the petition except
those that are specifically admitted here in. The above petition is not maintainable
either in law or facts as framed. The above said allegations are all false, baseless,
Page No. 2 of 6
III SCC, Chennai MCOP No.5537 of 2005
and untenable. This respondent denied the alleged manner of accident. Hence this
respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. This Respondent further submits
that the petitioners are put to strict proof of all the allegations relating to the validity
of Insurance policy, the driving license of the driver of the car bearing Registration
No.TN-22AA8940 who is alleged to have been involved in the accident. This
Respondent further state that the Petitioners have to prove by documentary evidence
beyond reasonable doubt that the 2 & 3 rd petitioners are legal heirs of deceased 1 st
petitioner and legal representatives of deceased petitioner. Without prejudice to the
above contentions this respondent puts the petitioner to strict proof of nature of
injuries, age, employment an income and all other claims in various heads made in
the petition. In any event the amount claimed is highly excessive and lacks in legal
basis and not in accordance with the provisions of M.V. Act. This respondent denies
the validity of vehicle records, driving licence of the driver and insurance coverage
alleged to be given by this respondent. This respondent further submits that the
alleged accident is not reported by the 1st respondent to this respondent and
documents pertaining to the vehicle, policy copy, driving licence of the driver have
not been produced and craves leave of this Hon’ble court to raise all defenses
available to the owner of the vehicle U/s 170 of M.V.Act. Hence, the petitioner has to
be dismissed against this respondent with cost.
5. The point for consideration in this petition are as follows:-
(1) Whether this accident has occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver/owner of the car bearing
Regn.No.TN22AA8940?
(2) Who is liable to pay the compensation?
(3) Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? and
if so, what is the quantum?
Page No. 3 of 6
III SCC, Chennai MCOP No.5537 of 2005
6. On the side of the Petitioners, two witnesses have been examined as P.W.1
and P.W.2 and 8 documents has been marked as Ex.P1 to P8. On the side of 2 nd
respondent, no witness examined and no exhibit marked.
7. Point No.1:
(i) The care of the petitioners is that on 15.03.2005 at above 23.00hrs, when
the 1st petitioner’s son Mr. Krishnamoorthy along with one Ramasamy walking from
west side to eastern side at 100ft Road, near SBOA School the 1 st respondent’s
vehicle Maruthi Wagan bearing Regd.No TN 22 AA 8940 driven by the respondent
driver cum owner in rash and negligent manner and endangering the public safety hit
the 1st petitioner’s son and caused death on the occurrence place. The claim petition
was originally filed by the 1st petitioner who died on 4.04.2008. And proceeded by
her legal heirs the 2nd and 3rd Petitioners. The driver cum owner of the Maruthi Wagon
car bearing Regd.No TN 22 AA 8940 is responsible for the accident. The first
respondent Babu being the owner of the car and 2nd respondent being Insurer both are
the jointly and vicariously liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
On perusal of the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7, it is
found that the first petitioner’s son died due to road accident on 15.03.2005. For that
accident a criminal complaint was lodged before V5 Thirumangalam Police Station,
Chennai District and a FIR has been registered in crime No.110/TM1/2005. In the
FIR, in column of the 7 the rider of the car TN22AA8940 was mentioned as accused.
The first respondent alleged to be the owner of the vehicle did not appear and was set
ex-parte. The PW2 eye witness to the occurrence have also deposed that the
occurrence was happened only because of the rash and negligent act of the driver of
the car. The 2nd respondent denied the manner of the accident and the involvement of
the vehicle and that the vehicle alleged to be involved was insured with the 2 nd
respondent insurance company and legal representation of 2 nd & 3rd petitioners. The
learned counsel for respondent argued that even when the original petitioner was
alive she was not ready for enquiry and the case was dismissed for default on
Page No. 4 of 6
III SCC, Chennai MCOP No.5537 of 2005
2.7.2008 and only on 25/9/2024 that is after 16 years the case is restored by legal
heirs of the deceased mother of deceased and the petitioners are put to strict proof of
the involvement of the the 1st respondent’s car in the accident and that the car was
insured with the 2nd respondent.
iii) Hence, from the oral evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the documentary
evidence of Ex.P1 and since there is no contra evidence available, this Tribunal
comes to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the car bearing Regn. No TN 22 AA 8940. But as pointed out
by the learned counsel for 2nd respondent even after more than 20 years the petitioners
failed to prove that the car bearing Regd.No TN 22 AA 8940 belonged to the 1 st
respondent Babu, no documentary evidence produced to prove that the 1 st respondent
is owner of the car either in FIR or in oral evidence of pw1 & 2. And no evidence let
in on side of the petitioners to prove that the car bearing Reg. No TN22AA8940 was
insured with 2nd respondent insurance company and insurance policy of the above
numbered car is also not produced. Therefore the claim petition being a petition under
section 166 of the MV Act it is mandatory that the claimants have to prove the
involvement and rash and negligent of the car belonging to the 1 st respondent and
insured with the 2nd respondent but no evidence before this Tribunal to show that the
accident occurred due to negligence of the car bearing Regd. No TN22AA8940 was
owned by the 1st respondent and was insured with 2 nd respondent and so the claimants
are not entitled to any relief against the respondents 1 & 2 as prayed for. And so
point number 1 is answered accordingly.
8. Point No.(2)
In Point No.(1), it has been decided that the accident had not occurred due to
any vehicle owned by the 1st respondent or any vehicle insured with the 2nd
respondent insurance company. Therefore the respondents 1 & 2 are not liable to pay
any compensation to the petitioners. And so point No.2 is Answered Accordingly. .
Page No. 5 of 6
III SCC, Chennai MCOP No.5537 of 2005
9. Point No.(3)
As discussed in point No 1 & 2, the respondents are not liable to pay any
compensation to the claimants and so the claim petition against the respondents is
liable to the dismissed and so this point need no further discussion.
10. RESULT:-
In the result the petition is dismissed with costs.
This order has been dictated by me to the Steno typist, typed by her in the
computer directly, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this
Wednesday, the 30th day of April 2025. JYOTHI Digitally signed
by JYOTHI K
K Date: 2025.04.30
17:18:35 +0530
III Judge
Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
Petitioner's side Witnesses:
P.W.1 : Mr.R. Kirubakaran, the 3rd petitioner
P.W.2 : Mr. C. Selvaraj
Petitioner's side Exhibits:
Ex.P1. F.I.R copy
Ex.P2. Copy of death report
Ex.P3. Copy of Legal heir certificate
Ex.P4. Copy of 1st petitioner’s death certificate
Ex.P5. 1st petitioner’s legal heir certificate copy
Ex.P6. Aadhaar card copy of 2nd petitioner's
Ex.P7. Aadhaar card copy of 3rd petitioner's
Ex.P8. Aadhaar card copy of PW2
Digitally signed
JYOTHI by JYOTHI K
2 Respondent's side Exhibits and Witnesses: Nil K
nd
Date: 2025.04.30
17:18:41 +0530
III Judge
Court of Small Causes Chennai.
Page No. 6 of 6
