SUBRAMANIA NAICKER Vs. KUPPUSWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The owner of the vehicle and his insurer, against whom the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has passed an Award, apportioning the liability as between them, have filed the present appeal, challenging their liability to pay compensation.

(2.) Facts briefly are: The deceased Umapathy was employed as a Truck Driver in the tractor bearing Registration No. TNM 7005 belonging to the first appellant and insured with the second appellant. On 25-7-1980 while the deceased was driving the tractor on the Madras Bangalore Road, a bus bearing Registration No. TMN 8068 belonging to the second respondent, being driven in a rash and (negligent) manner by its driver, dashed against the tractor, which over-turned on the road. The deceased Umapathy sustained serious injuries and succumbed to them later. The first respondent, who is the father of the deceased Umapathy, filed M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 96 of 1981 under S.110A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal Subordinate Judge), Vellore claiming a total Compensation of Rs. 35,000/-.

(3.) Lakshmipathy, who was driving the bus at the time of the accident, was arrayed as the first respondent before the Tribunal and was later exonerated. The appellants resisted the claim contending that the accident was due only to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the second respondent by its driver and that, therefore, it was only the second respondent who would be liable to pay compensation to the first respondent. The claim was also challenged as excessive. The second respondent resisted the claim contending t hat the accident was due only to the careless driving of the tractor by the deceased and that, therefore, the second respondent was not liable to pay any damages to the first respondent. The claim was also excessive.