(1.) Challenging the award passed by the Tribunal, the second respondent before the Tribunal namely National Insurance Company has preferred this appeal on the point of contributory negligence and quantum of compensation.
(2.) The first respondent herein filed M.C.O.P.No.1338 of 2006 alleging that on 24.03.2005 at about 20.00 hours, when the claimant had driven the Tempo bearing Registration No.KA 12 3607 belonging to the 3rd respondent and insured with the 4th respondent, in Dharmapuri to Krishnagiri NB7 road towards Krishnagiri, proceeding near K.R.P.Dam Junction Road, the lorry bearing Registration No.KA 01 AA 6060 belonging to the 2nd respondent herein and insured with the appellant herein was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without observing any rules of the road before the said Tempo and all of a sudden the driver stopped his lorry on the middle of the road without giving any signal. The claimant has not anticipated that the driver of the said lorry would stop the lorry suddenly on the middle of the road. However, the claimant applied sudden brake to avoid hit behind the said lorry. Due to the negligent act of the driver of the lorry, the tempo hit behind the lorry and that the claimant sustained severe injuries. On a complaint, a criminal case was registered against the Tempo in Cr.No.246/2005 of Kaveripattinam Police.
(3.) The appellant-Insurance Company denied the alleged age, avocation and income of the claimant and also denied the negligence on the part of the lorry, which was insured with them. The fourth respondent/Insurance Company has also made similar counter statement stating that the 3rd respondent /owner of the Tempo remained exparte. Negligence on the part of the Tempo is denied. Claim of Rs.5,00,000/- is denied as highly excessive and baseless. The accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the lorry. Hence, the fourth respondent is not liable to pay compensation and the petition is liable to be dismissed.