MADURANTAKAM Vs. ANJALAKSHMI AMMAL, MADURANTAKAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 26th July, 1995 made in O.S. No. 128 of 1992 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengaipattu.

(2.) The appellant herein was the third defendant in the suit before the Trial Court. The suit was filed by the first respondent herein against the defendants therein. It is not in dispute that the second respondent herein/ first defendant is the owner of the tractor-trailor bearing Registration Nos. TDH 1741 and TDH 1742 respectively, which met with an accident on 3rd March, 1992. The third respondent is the Insurance Company under whom the said Tractor-Trailor had been insured for the period prior to the accident. The appellant-Bank herein had sanctioned loan to the second respondent for purchasing the said Tractor-Trailor. The above said vehicle got capsized in the accident, due to which, one Krishnamoorthi, who was the son of the first respondent died on the spot.

(3.) According to the first respondent, it was the usual practice of the appellant to renew the policy with the third respondent and the appellant used to debit the insurance amount in the account of the second respondent. According to the first respondent, though the appellant had received the renewal notice from the third respondent, the Bank had not renewed the same, but allowed the policy to expire on 16th Dec., 1991 itself. According to the first respondent, it is only due to the carelessness and the negligence on the part of the appellant herein, the third party insurance was not renewed subsequently, with the third respondent, based on which, the suit was filed seeking for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000.00 as compensation for the death of the aforesaid Krishnamoorthi, son of the first respondent.