1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.07.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM C.M.A(MD)No.405 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bye-pass Road, Madurai. .. Appellant/Respondent Vs. P.Murugesan .. Respondent/Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 02.04.2009 passed in MCOP.No.1149 of 2007 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli. For Appellant : Mr.M.Prakash For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthik JUDGMENT Challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the award dated 02.04.2009 passed in MCOP.No.1149 of 2007 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli. 2. The respondent herein as petitioner has filed MCOP No.1149 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award of Rs.1,50,000/-, wherein the present appellant has been shown as sole respondent. 3. In the petition it is averred that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-74-1111. The driver of the respondent has driven the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-72-N-0785 in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-74-1111. Due to accident, the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-74-1111 has got damaged. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting compensation as mentioned therein. 4. In the counter filed on the side of the respondent it is averred that the accident has not happened due to the alleged rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent. The entire accident has happened only due to the driver of the lorry and further the petitioner has to prove permit, F.C as well as ownership and there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after considering the available evidence on record has awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- by way of compensation. Against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the respondent as appellant. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent has raised a factual point to the effect that even though on the side of the appellant/respondent it has been contended that the petitioner has to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 prove permit, F.C as well as ownership of the vehicle mentioned in the petition, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has not at all considered the same and in fact no relevant point has been determined for the purpose of giving quietus to the aspect raised on the side of the appellant/respondent and therefore, the entire award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that on the side of the respondent/petitioner enormous documents have been filed so as to prove the ownership of the petitioner. Under the said circumstances, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and therefore, the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal need not be interfered with. 8. As rightly pointed out on the side of the appellant/respondent in paragraph-6 of the counter it has been specifically stated that the permit, F.C and ownership of the lorry has to be established. The driving licence of the driver of the lorry has to be established. Even though a specific denial has been put forth on the side of the appellant/respondent with regard to the aforesaid aspect, no point has been framed for proper determination. Unless the alleged ownership of the vehicle which involved in the accident is proved on the side of the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to get compensation. But the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has not at all considered the vital point raised on the side of the appellant/respondent. Since the vital point raised on the side of the appellant/respondent has not at all been considered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal the entire award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remitted to the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 9. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed without cost and the award passed in MCOP.No.1149 of 2007 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli is set aside and MCOP No.1149 of 2007 is remitted to the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli. The respondent/petitioner is strictly directed to prove his ownership of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN- 74-1111. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli is directed to dispose of MCOP No.1149 of 2007 before the end of September 2011 and report the same to the Registry without fail. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.II, Tirunelveli. +1CC TO MR.S.KARTHIK, ADVOCATE SR.22173 mj : SR : 21.07.2011 : 2p/3c C.M.A(MD)No.405 of 2011 08.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/