M KANDA SWAMY Vs. CHINNASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The motor accident that took place on 22-2-1979 near Pillur Village, south of Ulundurpet no Grand Trunk Road, had given rise to three claim petitions, O.P. Nos. 85; 133 and 137 of 1979 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore. The Tribunal rendered a common judgment in all the three proceedings. The two appeals are directed against the award passed by the Tribunal in O.Ps. 85 and 137 of 1979 respectively. The appellant in both the appeals is the owner of the lorry which was involved in the accident and first respondent in the former is the claimant before the Tribunal, while respondents 1 to 7 are the claimants in the latter. The 2nd respondent is the insurance company which ranked as second respondent even before the Tribunal.

(2.) The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry MDG 1609, it awarded Rs. 13,300/- to the first respondent in C.M.A. 645 of 1980, because his hand was crushed and ultimately his left hand had to be amputated and also he suffered multiple injuries, made up of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the permanent disability suffered by the injured, Rs. 300/- towards loss of income for a period of two months at Rs. 150/- per month, Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for pain and sufferings. In the other proceedings, the Tribunal gave an award for Rs. 20,600/-, made up of Rs. 16,100/- being compensation for loss of dependency and Rs. 4,500/- as Compensation to the deceased's wife. The Tribunal directed the owner of the vehicle - the appellant before us - to pay compensation to the injured and to the heirs of the deceased respectively, but dismissed the claim as against the insurance company.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant made two submissions. The first is that the Tribunal erred in exonerating the Insurance company from liability. In this context, the learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal had not made a proper construction of S.95, particularly the proviso attached thereto and Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, while the second is directed against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.