ANNAMALAI Vs. ABITHAKUJAMBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the third respondent in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 39 of 1971, in the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Arcot at Vellore On 24-5-1971 at about 3-50 p.m. one Jeevaratna Mudaliar was run over by a Willy's jeep van belonging to the Malaria Eradication and Maintenance department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The vehicle was driven by one Annamalai, who is the third respondent in the O.P. It was going on the Bangalore-Madras trunk road and at place near the Shenbakkam cross road, very close to the Vellore town, the accident occurred. The widow of the deceased Jeevaratna Mudaliar and her two daughters filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs. 15000. There are three respondents; the first is the State Government; the second is the driver and the third is the Officer who was travelling in the said vehicle at the time of the accident. Some time before the accident occurred, the second respondent had complained of chest pail and therefore, he handed over the vehicle with the third respondent, who had a driving licence and who was also authorised to drive the vehicle in case of necessity. Thus, at the time when the accident occurred, it was the third respondent who was actually at the steering. The allegation of the petitioner was that the death of Jeevaratna Mudaliar was the direct result of the rash and negligent act on the part of the second and third respondents who are employees of the first respondent. The first respondent resisted the petition contending that the death of the victim was not due to any rash and negligent driving; that it was entirely due to the imprudent act on the part of the deceased, viz., in darting across the road in the cycle that was coming behind; that the police who had registered a case in this behalf, had 'referred' the matter and that the State could not be vicariously liable as the third respondent was not acting in accordance with the authority conferred on him. The third respondent in his counter disputed the allegation that he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. According to him, he was driving the vehicle only at 15 to 20 miles per hour. Since there was heavy traffic on the road, he had kept himself to the extreme left. At the time of the accident, a lorry was coming opposite to him when Jeevaratna Mudaliar tried to dart across the road. Finding the lorry coming on the opposite direction, the victim got panicky and dropped the cycle on the middle of road and dashed across the road obviously to avoid being knocked down by the lorry. It was, therefore, submitted that he was not at all liable.

(2.) The Tribunal framed the following two substantial issues or points for consideration, viz.--(1) Whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the third respondent; (2) and if the accident is due to the rash and negligent driving of the third respondent, whether the first respondent was not liable for the tortious act of the third respondent.

(3.) On this point, it was held that the accident has occurred on account of the rash and negligent act of the third respondent and that both the first and third respondents would be liable for compensation. The compensation was fixed at Rs. 7500. The second respondent was exonerated as he was not driving the vehicle, and the first and third respondents had to pay the compensation as fixed by the Tribunal. The third respondent has alone filed this appeal.