HARISCHANDRA HEGDE Vs. T P KRISHNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 3rd Septr. 1980 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City, in MTC Nos. 99 and 100 of 1980 on its file, awarding com pensation of Rs. 24,446 70 p. in MVC No. 99 of 1980 and Rs. 21,276 83 p. in MVC No. 100 of 1980.

(2.) MFA No. 29 of 1981 is by the owner of the motor cycle in question and also the rider of the motor cycle against the judgment and award in MVC No. 99 of 1980. MFA No. 265 of 1981 is by the same persons against the judgment and award in MVC No. 100 of 1980. The relevant facts giving rise to these appeals are these : On 4 1-1980 at about 7 p.m. the claimants namely, Krishnamurthy and Padma were going in an autorickshaw bearing registration No MYA 3072 on 4th cross road in Hanumanthnagar, from west to east to go to Gandhibazaar. When the autorickshaw entered the third main road junction and had practically covered 3/4 of the junction, a motor cycle from the third main road dashed against the autorickshaw, as a result of which the inmates in the autorickshaw were thrown out and suffered fracture of the scapula and the collar-bone respectively and disability therefrom. The husband instituted MVC No. 99 of 1980 claiming compensation of Rs. 60,000 from respondents, whereas the wife instituted MVC No. 100 of 1980 claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000. They arrayed the owner, the insurer and the driver of the motor cycle as also the autorickshaw driver as respondents. The cases were contested and the owner and the driver of the autorickshaw denied their liability stating that the accident was not the result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the autorickshaw. Similarly, the driver and the owner of the motor cycle also denied their liability stating tbat the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle in question. Both of them further contended that the compensation claimed in the two cases was excessive. The two cases were heard together. During hearing the claimants examined themselves and no other eye witness was examined and they got marked Exts. P 1 to P 21. As against that, respondents examined three witnesses and got marked Exts. R 1 to R 17. The Tribunal appreciating the evidence on record found that both the drivers of autorickshaw and motor cycle were responsible for causing the accident and it fixed the proportion of liability at 50% each. In that view, taking into consideration the injury suffered and the disability left over, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 24,446-70 p. in MVC No. 99 of 1980 and awarded compensation of Rs. 21,276-83 p. in MVC No. 100 of 1980. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the owner and driver of the motor cycle have instituted the above appeals as stated above.

(3.) In both the cases, the Insurance Company is made liable. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants strenuously contended, firstly that the Tribunal was not justified in holding tbat the driver of the motor cycle was responsible in causing the accident He further submitted alternatively that even if there was some negligence on the part of the driver of the motor cycle, the compensation claimed was excessive. He also submitted, without prejudice, that whatever compensation was to be paid by the owner of the vehicle had to be saddled on the Insurance Company. As against that the learned counsel appearing for the claimants argued supporting the judgment and award. So far as negligence and quantum of compensation are concerned, he did not oppose that the liability should be fixed on the Insurance Company. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company however argued that since the vehicle was already transferred on the date of accident, no liability should be saddled on the Insuran ce Company. The points therefore that arise for our consideration in these appeals are- (J) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that both the drivers of autorickshaw and motor cycle were liable for causing the accident and if so, whether the Tribunal was further justified in apportioning the liability at 50% on each driver ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in not saddling the liability on the Insurance Company in the two cases ?