BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MARSHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In an accident that took place on 03.06.1998 at about 3.00 p.m., on the Sathyamangalam-Annur Road, involving a Jeep bearing Registration No. TN-38-A-9385 and a Tempo van bearing Registration No.TC Z 4577, the claimant, a passenger of the jeep suffered injuries. Challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the insurer of the van has preferred the appeal.

(2.) The facts are: The road at the place where the accident took place was running in north-south direction and the Jeep was proceeding from north to south whereas the Tempo was coming from the opposite direction. The claimant and PW-2 were two of the passengers in the Jeep, and besides them there was its driver. In the said accident, all the inmates of the Jeep had suffered injuries, of whom the claimant had come forward with a claim of Rs.5,00,000/- for his injuries, as against which the Tribunal has passed an award of Rs.40,000/- and fastened the entire negligence on the driver of the van, whose insurer is the appellant herein. The break-up details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is tabulated below: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_332_LAWS(MAD)9_2017_1.html</FRM>

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence on record indicates that the driver of the Jeep had committed hara kiri by colliding with a defensively driven tempo van, invited injuries to himself and became responsible for the injuries suffered by two of his passengers which included the claimant. The Tribunal was wrong in entering the finding of negligence solely against the driver of the Tempo. The learned counsel added that the FIR of the case was registered only against the driver of the jeep, that the charge sheet was also laid against the driver of the jeep and the said driver had pleaded guilty before the Magistrate Court. In spite of this, and ignoring these pieces of evidence available on record, the Tribunal had fallen in error in holding that the driver of the tempo van was entirely negligent. Reliance was placed on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Premlata Shukla and Others [CDJ 2007 SC 627].