NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SIVASANKARA PILLAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) National Insurance Company Limited is the appellant in all these appeals which are in challenge of different awards passed by a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in favour of different claimants, but all arising out of one accident. A collision of two motor vehicles took place at about 6 p.m. on 8-7-1985 at Chadayamangalam on Trivandrum-Kottarakkara road. One of the vehicles involved in the collision was a trekker (TME 4213) and the other was a lorry (KEV 3646).

(2.) All claimants were passengers in the trekker. The Tribunal found that the collision was the result of composite negligence of the drivers of both vehicles, but the ratio of negligence factor was different as between them. Tribunal fixed negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry as 75% and on the part of the driver of the trekker as 25%. The lorry was insured with the appellant insurance company. The owner and driver of the trekker were not made parties in the claims, nor has the insurer of the trekker been impleaded in the proceedings. So the Tribunal, after holding that the accident was the result of composite negligence of both drivers, passed the award against the driver and owner of the lorry and directed the appellant insurance company to pay the entire amount of damages. However, the Tribunal permitted the appellant company to recover 25% of the award amount from the owner, driver and / or insurer of the trekker. These appeals are in challenge of the said awards.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant insurance company could not be made liable for anything more than what the insured is liable and that the insurer cannot be made liable for any amount more than the percentage of negligence fixed in respect of the vehicle insured. The permission to recover 25% of the award amount from the owner, driver and insurer of the trekker is no consolation for the appellant as the said direction is not binding on them since they were not parties in the claim proceedings, contended the counsel.