MUNI DEVI Vs. PRADIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the claimants-appellants against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh, dated 10.1.2007, by which a total sum of Rs. 1,69,500 had been awarded to the claimants by way of compensation on account of the accident caused by a vehicle bearing No. WB 25-A 3265. The amount of compensation although was determined by the Tribunal it further ordered that the amount would be payable by the respondent No. 2, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. only to the extent of 50 per cent which would come to Rs. 84,750 as it was held therein that the liability of the vehicle insured with the respondent No. 2, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was only partial and the vehicle which was driven by the deceased which was Tata Sumo bearing No. HR 261-2239, was also equally liable to share the liability of compensation to the tune of half of the liability that is balance 50 per cent.

(2.) The appeal has been preferred by the legal representatives of the deceased who are the claimants herein on two counts. First of all, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the apportionment of the liability of payment of compensation to the extent of half and half is legally not sustainable in the wake of the evidence adduced before the Tribunal as on perusal of the record it could be clearly inferred that the bus which was insured with the insurance company is alone liable to cause the accident as a result of which the deceased who was driving Tata Sumo, suffered head-on collision due to bus and died as a consequence of the accident caused by the bus. By advancing this argument, it was sought to be established that the liability fastened on the insurance company with which Tata Sumo was insured could not be sustained in view of the evidence adduced as the bus alone was responsible for causing the accident since the evidence on record disclosed that the bus was driven at an extremely high speed and it was responsible for causing the accident. The contention, therefore, is to the effect that the bus alone was driven in a rash and negligent manner and, therefore, it was alone liable for head-on collision due to which the accident took place and the deceased died who was coming from the opposite direction.

(3.) The counsel for the respondent No. 2, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. countered the submission advanced by the counsel for the appellants and endeavoured hard to impress upon the court that the bus alone cannot be held responsible to have caused the accident as there was sufficient space on the spot of the accident and two vehicles could easily cross the road. We do not feel impressed by this argument for although, there might have been enough space for two vehicles to pass the fact remains that as per the evidence it was the bus which was coming at an unreasonably high speed and there is no evidence on record to show that the vehicle which was driven by the deceased was also coming equally at a high speed. From this part of the evidence, it could reasonably be inferred that Tata Sumo which was driven by the deceased was not at all at fault and it was the bus which was insured with the respondent No. 2, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was alone responsible to cause the accident. This is the finding recorded by the Tribunal also in which we find no infirmity or any perversity so as to set aside the same. Hence, the liability of compensation could not have been apportioned between the respondent No. 2, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and the other insurance company with which Tata Sumo was insured.