K R VISALAKSHI Vs. POOKODAN HAMZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Appeals arises from the judgments and awards of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri in Motor Accidents Claims Nos 170, 133, 134,155 and 168 of 1982. Those were applications filed by the persons who were injured in an accident involving stage carriage No. KLH 8204 which was proceeding from Vazhikadavu to Trichur, and a contract carriage bus No. KET 1714 which was proceeding from Trichur to Nadukani. The vehicles collided at a place called Muppini in Malappuram Dist on 1-2-1982. The driver of the stage carriage KLH 8204 filed M.A.C. No. 170/82 claiming an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him. Respondents 1 to 3 in that application were the owner, driver and insurer of the contract carriage No. KET 1714. Respondents 4 and 5 were the owner and insurer of the stage carriage KLH 8204. He claimed that the accident occurred and he sustained the injuries due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the contract carriage. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation by its judgment and award dt. 21-1-1983. The owner, driver and insurer of the contract carriage No. KET 1714 were made jointly liable to pay the amount. The owner and insurer of the contract carriage are the appellants in M.F.A. 272/83.

(2.) M.A.C. Nos. 133, 134, 155 and 168 of 1982 were filed by passengers in the stage carriage No. KLH 8204. They had impleaded the driver, owner and insurer of the contract carriage, and the driver, owner and insurer of the stage carriage as respondents in the applications. In M.A.C. No. 133/82, the applicant claimed an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal found that the drivers of both the stage carriage and the contract carriage were rash and negligents, awarded an amount of Rs. 32,000/- as compensation jointly against the two sets of owners, drivers and insurers and since the amount was less than the insurance liability, the Tribunal directed that the insurers of the respective vehicles would pay the compensation in equal proportion. The claim in M.A.C. 134/82 was for one lakh of rupees as compensation. The claimant in M.A.C. 168/82 claimed an amount of Rs. 20,300/-. The claim in M.A.C. 155/82 was for Rs. 45,000/-. The Tribunal, in its separate judgments, awarded Rs. 22,000/-, Rs. 4,300/- and Rs. 7,500/- respectively as compensation and on the finding that both the drivers were rash and negligent, the Tribunal directed that each set of drivers, owners and insurers shall pay 50% of the compensation awarded, and directed recovery of the amount from the insurers in view of the fact that the amounts awarded were within the insurance limits. As in M.F.A. No. 272 of 1983, the owner and the insurer of the contract carriage No. KET 1714 are the appellants in the other four appeals also.

(3.) Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal ought to have tried all the five claim petitions together and should have disposed them of by a common judgment. He stated that an application for this purpose was filed before the Tribunal, but the same was not granted, with the result that in respect of the same accident, the Tribunal entered two different and conflicting findings. In M.A.C. No. 170/82 filed by the driver of the stage carriage No. KLH 8204, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the contract carriage KET 1714 only, whereas in respect of the same accident and on the basis of almost the same evidence, the Tribunal entered a finding that the accident was due to the rashness and negligence of both the drivers. Consequently, the Tribunal awarded recovery of the entire amount of compensation from the owner, driver and insurer of the contract carriage, whereas in the other four claims, the Tribunal directed recovery of 50% of the amount of compensation alone from them, directing the other 50% to be recovered from the owner, driver and insurer of the stage carriage No. KLH 8204. He also submitted that the two different interpretations have been adopted by the same Tribunal on almost the same evidence tendered by the drivers of the two vehicles. This, according to him, has resulted in an avoidable anomaly.