- (1.)The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in CMA(MD).No.1819 of 2007, against the judgment and decree passed in MCOP No.3335 of 2001 dated 23.11.2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/V Court of Small Causes at Chennai.
(2.)The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioner has filed the claim petition in MCOP No.3335 of 2001, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 28.04.2001, at about 10.15 hours, when the petitioner was proceeding in the TVS Suzuki motorcycle bearing registration No. TN 04 E 4102, on the 100 feet road, Velachery from south to north and when it was near Yerikarai Kala Waste Paper, Door No.18 B, the first respondent tanker lorry bearing registration No. TN 23 W 0564, coming in the opposite direction and driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner sustained multiple grievous injuries and was admitted at Athipathi hospital, Velachery, Chennai on 28.04.2001 and thereafter, he took private treatment. At the time of accident, the petitioner was aged 34 years and was employed as a centring worker and earning Rs.4,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner could not stand and walk. Hence, he has filed the claim against the first and second respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the tanker lorry bearing registration No. TN 23 W 0564.

(3.)The first respondent, in his counter, has denied the averments in the claim regarding age, occupation, nature of employment, monthly income, nature of injuries, medical treatment taken and disability. It was submitted that the accident was caused only due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the petitioner and not due to any negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent's tanker lorry. It was submitted that as the first respondent's vehicle was covered under a policy of insurance with the second respondent, only the second respondent is liable to pay compensation, if so decided by the tribunal.