- (1.) THIS appeal is focussed as against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.07.2000 passed in M.C.O.P.No.498 of 1998 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and there is no representation on behalf of the first respondent. Notice to R2 is dispensed with as he remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide Judgment dated 25.07.2000 awarded compensation to a tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) under the following sub-heads: For pain and sufferings -Rs.10,000/- For permanent disability -Rs.40,000/- Total -Rs.50,000/- Anim adverting upon the finding of the Tribunal the appellant/Insurance Company, challenges the liability fixed on it to pay compensation on various grounds including the one that even though the claimant could not produce any clinching evidence relating to the Insurance policy issued by the appellant herein, nonetheless the appellant was fastened with liability.
(3.) THE point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal was right in fastening the appellant/Insurance Company with the liability to pay compensation even though before the Tribunal there was no evidence in that regard? On point: The learned counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company by drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph No.7 of the Judgment of the Tribunal would develop his arguments to the effect that the Tribunal was not justified in expecting that the appellant/Insurance Company should have produced evidence to the effect that there was no insurance policy issued relating to the offending vehicle, by any of in all the branch offices of the appellant throughout India; no law contemplates that when the claimant is not in a position to prove that a particular Insurance Company issued an insurance policy, whomsoever the Insurance Company is cited as the respondent in M.C.O.P., should take steps to prove the negative aspect that throughout India that Insurance Company's Branches have not issued any policy relating to the offending vehicle.;