JUDGMENT - This C.M.A. is directed against the order, dated 27.01.1999 rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kadapa in M.V.O.P.No.836 of 1995.

2. The appellant was working as cleaner on a truck bearing registration No. AP-04-T-2299 owned by the first respondent herein. The second respondent has issued the insurance cover, which is marked as Ex.B-1. The appellant-claimant had asserted that the truck in question was proceeding from Delhi to Madras which has been booked up for commercial cargo and en route met with a collision head on with an oil tanker coming in the opposite direction at Dhalghat village in Madhya Pradesh. The appellant was admitted along with the truck driver to the local hospital and from there he had been shifted to M.Y. Hospital, at Indore, Madhya Pradesh State. After a week's treatment there, at his request, the appellant has been discharged and brought over to Kadapa where he has been admitted in the District Headquarters Hospital and he was subsequently shifted for better medical care to S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupathi. The appellant-claimant had asserted that he had undergone surgery during hospitalization at S.V.R.R. Tirupathi. He claimed a total amount of Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation. He put- forth his claim by examining himself as PW-1 and the Orthopaedic Surgeon attached to S.V.R.R. Hospital, who had treated him has been examined as PW-2. The appellant has marked a copy of the F.I.R. as Ex.A-1. Ex.A-2 is the copy of the wound certificate issued indicating the extent of injuries sustained by him in the accident. Ex.A-5 is the outpatient admission chit of the Hospital at Indore, Madhya Pradesh State while Exs.A-6 and A-7 are the similar admission chits of the Government General Hospital, Tirupathi. Ex.A-8 is a bunch of prescriptions of various medicines issued by the attending physicians on the appellant. A bunch of 16 bills indicating the medicines purchased have been got marked as Ex.A-9. Ex.A-4 is the x-ray film belonging to the appellant reflecting three fractures sustained by him in the accident in question. Ex.A-3 is the disability certificate issued to the appellant setting out that the appellant had suffered permanent disability and the percentage is assessed to be at 25%.

3. Though the Insurance Company has disputed the accident in question to have occurred and also the factum that the appellant is employed as cleaner on the truck owned by the first respondent, it did not pursue those objections in view of the clinching evidence produced by the appellant indicating his admission to a hospital at far off Indore in Madhya Pradesh State and the subsequent follow- up of the same at the District Headquarters Hospital at Kadapa and S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupathi. The finding, therefore, recorded by the Tribunal that the accident in question had taken place involving the truck bearing No. AP-04-T- 2299 by the first respondent is beyond any reasonable doubt in view of Ex.A-1 copy of the F.I.R. Therefore, the Tribunal had arrived at a correct conclusion that the truck owned by the first respondent is one of the two trucks which got involved in the accident and that the claimant-appellant is also injured grievously in the said accident apart from the injury sustained by the driver of the said truck. Therefore, there is no difficulty in affirming the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal.

4. However, the contention canvassed by the second respondent-insurance company that without impleading the owner of the oil tanker and its insurer, which is the other vehicle, involved in the accident, the second respondent herein cannot be mulcted with the accountability and the liability to pay for the entire quantum of compensation, has been accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had found that both the vehicles namely, the truck owned by the first respondent and the oil tanker have contributed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document