(1.) The 6th respondent National Insurance Co. before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is the appellant here. The Tribunal passed an award in favour of the claimant holding that respondents 1 to 4 and 6 are jointly and severally liable and directing the 6th respondent insurance company to deposit the whole amount of Rs. 50,930/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The appeal is against this award.
(2.) The facts briefly, stated are as follows: The first respondent claimant was a passenger in a lorry bearing registration No. KLK 3580 going from Mutholikkadavu to Mylankandathu with a load of timber on 17.2.1984. At about 1 p.m. when the lorry came to the Mevada Junction, another lorry bearing registration No. KLF 605 came from the opposite direction collided with lorry KLK 3580. The 1st respondent and others were injured. He was taken to the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Palai and then to Medical College Hospital wherein he had undergone prolonged treatment as an inpatient. He had also undergone further treatment of Fathima Mission Hospital, Kozhuvanal for 45 days. Ext. A4 is the copy of the wound certificate showing 4 cm x 4 cm wound over the posterior aspect of the upper third right thigh, lacerated wound 4 cm. x 5 cm on the posterior aspect of the right knee, superficial abrasion over the outer aspect of the right knee, multiple lacerated wound on the right foot, lacerated wound 1 x 1 x 1 cms. on the posterior aspect of lower end of right leg and dislocation of right knee. Consequently, his right knee was operated. He had also undergone hospital treatment for 6 months as inpatient. He filed a petition claiming a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh.
(3.) The Tribunal found that the Ist respondent claimant sustained injuries as alleged. On the issue relevant for our consideration, viz., 'on whose negligence the accident occurred ', the Tribunal found that the accident was the result of the composite negligence of the drivers of both the lorries and fixed a compensation of Rs. 50,930/-. One of the insurance companies, viz., the New India Assurance Company, the insurer of lorry KLK 3580, was exonerated from the liability by the Tribunal since the lorry was not insured with them. Consequently, the drivers and the owners of the lorries and the National Insurance Company, the insurer of lorry KLF 605, were held jointly liable. However, the Tribunal directed the 6th respondent alone to deposit the amount. Hence the appeal.