K N GANAPATHY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by one Mr.K.N.Ganapathy in the year 1995. In this writ petition, the petitioner claims to be a student of Asian Institute of Management, Manila, Philippines, having been graduated from Christian College, Madras and obtaining a decree in Physics soon thereafter. He claims that he was thereafter employed in a factory at Ambattur, Madras. He has then pleaded certain facts suggesting that he would be required to enjoy good health to complete and pursue further education. In para 3 of the petition, the petitioner pleads that he was in Madras, now Chennai, in the year 1994 and on 6.2.1994, he met with a very serious accident while going in a Maruti car as a passenger. He has thereafter given the total number injuries that he had suffered to his face, eye and other parts of the body. He claims that the accident had occurred on account of a hit by a lorry to the Maruti car. According to him, it was a case of hit and run. He then complains that though the complaint was given to the police station. The police were unable to find out the said lorry now could they arrest the driver, who according to him was driving that lorry in a rash and negligent manner. He then claims that he stayed in the hospital for 16 days and that he had to suffer a hospital bill of about 1.50 lakhs. The petitioner then claims that as a citizen he would be entitled to claim a compensation against the State Government. In para 7, he points out that the General Insurance Company, which is the holding company of all the nationalised insurance companies, would also be liable to compensate the petitioner. Along with this writ petition, the petitioner has filed the insurance policies of the Oriental Insurance Company, a cover note, accident and injury report issued by the Apollo Hospital and other reports regarding his injuries.

(2.) A counter came to be filed to this writ petition, both by the State of Tamilnadu as also by the Managing Director, General Insurance Corporation. In their counter, the first respondent has pointed out that the writ petition was for the beneficial monetary relief and was not maintainable. They further pointed out that this accident had occurred on 6.2.1994 at 4'O clock in the morning at College Road and it had taken place between a Maruti car bearing No.TN-01-1267 and a lorry TMJ 3553. The counter then makes it clear that there were in all six persons travelling in the car, they being the driver, one Mr.R.Raju Chesetty and four occupants of the car namely 1) Miss.Nithya, aged about 19 years 2) Miss.Ranjini, aged about 21 years, and 3) Mr.S.Madappa, aged about 26 years 4) Mr.B.M.Bopanna, aged about 23 years, besides the petitioner who himself is 24 years old. It is pointed out that the investigation was going on in pursuance of the criminal case registered. It is then pointed out that inspite of the best efforts of the police, the lorry could not be located and the number of the lorry was actually a number allotted to a motor cycle as per the records of the Regional Transport Office, Chennai. It is then pointed out that under Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act, there is a provision for the payment of compensation in the hit and run cases. It was also pointed out that the monetary liability in such cases is controlled and limited under that section and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for Rs.14 lakhs would be of no consequence.

(3.) In their counter, the second respondent-General Insurance Corporation reiterated that the Motor Vehicles Act had made a specific provision for hit and run cases and it provided a compensation for Rs.2,000/- and it was revised to Rs.12,500/- from 14.11.1994. The insurance company also refuted its liability on the ground that firstly the vehicle, either the one belonging to the petitioner or the lorry was not insured with it as it could be insured only with subsidiary companies. In short, the respondents have refuted their liability. Both the respondents have also challenged the tenability of the writ petition on the ground that there were number of questions of fact involved.