NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. NIRMALA BALACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these four appeals are preferred by the common appellant/insurance company. Three persons were travelling in a Maruti car. They were proceeding along the road from South towards North. The road had a width of 8 metres. According to them, the insured vehicle/lorry which was proceeding in front, suddenly, without showing any signals, was rashly turned to the right hand side. Attempt was made to avoid the accident; but the driver of the car could not avoid collision. The car hit on the right rear wheel of the lorry. The car suffered damage and the three occupants of the car suffered personal injuries. Altogether four claims were staked before the tribunal - three for compensation for personal injuries suffered and the fourth for the damage suffered by the car. The driver and the owner of the insured vehicle remained ex parte. The appellant/insurance company alone resisted the claim. It was contended that the accident was not due to the negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle. It was contended that, at any rate, the driver of the car was also guilty of contributory negligence. Quantum of compensation claimed was also disputed.

(2.) Parties went to trial on these contentions. On the side of the claimants, two claimants, who were in the car at the time of the accident and who had witnessed the incident were examined. In addition, a person - allegedly an independent witness who had witnessed the occurrence, was also examined by the claimants. All the three of them stated that the accident occurred only because the lorry driver suddenly and in a very rash and negligent manner without showing any signal attempted to abruptly take the lorry to the right side to go to a side road K.P. Chacko Memorial Road on the eastern side of the main road. It was only the rash and negligent conduct of the driver of the insured vehicle who suddenly turned the vehicle to the right hand side without showing any signal that led to the accident, asserted those witnesses. The claimants relied further on the final report submitted by the police after due investigation indicting the driver of the insured lorry as the sole accused.

(3.) The respondents, even after those three witnesses were examined and the final report/charge sheet was marked did not choose to adduce any evidence in support of the plea that the driver of the insured vehicle was not negligent and that the driver of the car had in any way contributed to the accident.