S ARUSAMY Vs. C NAGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of seven MACT.OPs. filed by different claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore, claiming compensation in various sums in respect of an accident involving two vehicles one a lorry and another an autorickshaw. Various amounts have been awarded by the tribunal and the owner and the Insurance Company have filed the appeals. The details relating to the various appeals are given in a tabular form below: Sl.No Appeal No. MACT.OP No. Name of the deceased Coimbtore Injuries sustained Claim amount Award amount 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. 1620/95 658/90 Nagarajan As per A-9 Accident Register 3 injuries. A-10 - 7th left rib broken. No proof for disability. Discharged himself against medical advice 3,00,000 60,000

(2.) 1621/95 12/91 Abdul Kadar Occupation; Running Bakery/No proof of income As per Accident Register (A-4) 4 injuries one simple and three grievous. P-16 Disability Certificate Disability 75% Doctor P.W.4 5,00,000 75,000

(3.) 1625/95 75/91 (Minor) Sajath aged 7 years 3rd standard student. 3 injuries - two simple one grievous as per Ex.A-8 the Accident Register. Right hand two bones broken. Disability - 25% (P-18) 1,00,000 30,000 3. The accident happened on 17.10.1990. A lorry bearing registration No.TDV.9093 dashed against an autorickshaw bearing No.TMR.1201 in which the deceased and the injured were travelling. The accident occurred on Kovai-Pollachi Main Road. 4. The case of the claimants was as follows: On 17.10.1990 at about 7.30 p.m. the victims were travelling in the auto from south to north on the left side of the road. The lorry belonging to the first appellant driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the auto, as a result of which, the auto driver and one seven year old boy Prabu by name, were fatally injured and the other occupants suffered grievous injuries. The accident was entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and the claimants were entitled to be paid compensation in various sums. 5. The second appellant/Insurance Company filed a counter which was adopted by the first appellant/Owner and the lorry driver/third respondent herein, and it was to the following effect: The accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The auto had carried five persons which was illegal and against law and neither the owner nor the driver nor the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation. It was also contended that the auto driver did not have a valid licence at the time of the accident and that in any event the amounts claimed were excessive and beyond all proportions. 6. The Insurance Company, with which the auto was insured, was impleaded as the fifth respondent in the petition before the tribunal and it is also a party in the present appeals either as the fourth respondent or as the fifth respondent. It filed a counter contending that it was only the second appellant/ Insurance Company which was liable to pay compensation amounts, that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the auto, that the auto had been insured for three passengers and the maximum liability would be Rs.45,000, and over and above that amount, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay, in case, any liability was fastened on it. 7. As regards negligence, the tribunal found that it was only the lorry driver who was responsible for the accident and in coming to that conclusion the tribunal relied on the first information report and the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. The tribunal also adverted to the crime report - Ex.P-2 - and the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector - Ex.P-3 and also the oral evidence of the lorry driver himself, who, according to the tribunal, admitted to his having seen the auto coming on his right and if only he had applied the brakes, the accident could have been averted. The tribunal also found that it had not been established that the driver of the auto did not have a valid licence.