KANNIAPPA NADAR Vs. JAYAPANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the letters patent appeals are directed against the common judgment of V. Ratnam, J., as he then was, in C.M.A. Nos. 136 to 144 of 1989 dated 29-10-1993. C.R.P. No. 2655 of 1990 is directed against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, in M.A.C.O.P. No. 17 of 1988. All the appeals and the revision have been preferred by the owner of the lorry MDT 8827 involved in the accident. The 1 st respondent in all the matters is the claimant while the 2nd respondent is the insurance company.

(2.) On 27-3-1985 when some of the claimants and others were travelling in the lorry MDT 8827 with paddy bags between Tirunelveli and Kariyapatti, at about 5-30 a.m., near the garden of one Thanga Pandian on the Virudhunagar Kallakurichi Road, an accident took place in which some persons lost their lives and others sustained injuries. The injured and the legal representatives of the deceased passengers who travelled in the lorry claimed compensation in a sum of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.35,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs.53,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively stating that the lorry involved in the accident was driven rashly and negligently by its driver and that has caused the accident and therefore, compensation should be awarded to them.

(3.) The appellant/ owner of the lorry resisted the claim on the ground that on 27-3-1985 several agricultural coolies were returning from Tirunelveli to Kariapatti along with their paddy bags for their safe carriage on payment of a hire of Rs. 60/-, that between Virudhunagar and Kallakurichi near the garden of one Thanga Pandian, the lorry was caught in a depression on the road, that with a view to avert any accident, the driver asked all the passengers to get down, that while the driver attempted to pull out the lorry, it capsized and those who were standing near the lorry got involved in the accident and that the accident was not the outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The owner of the lorry has also pleaded that he was not liable for payment of compensation and that in any event, the compensation claimed is excessive and on the high side.