IMPORTANT POINTS:
• When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehicles and its direction etc. depends on number of factors like speed of vehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place at which one vehicle hit the other, etc.
• The Court cannot give any specific finding about negligence on the part of any individual, in the absence of direct or corroborative evidence.
• The 2nd respondent parked the lorry on the eastern side of the National Highway-47, which is a road carrying fast traffic, and the lorry was occupying the tarred surface of the road to an extent of at least one meter, in contravention of Regulation 15(2) the Rules of the Road Regulations, by causing danger to the life of the road users and obstruction to other vehicles on the road. Therefore, the evidence on record make it explicitly clear that, the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased as well as that of the 2nd respondent driver of the lorry and the findings to the contra in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained.

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

The appellants are the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.1177/2000 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of the death of one Venkiteswaran, in a motor accident which occurred on 2.6.2000 at about 6.30 pm, at a place called Padalodemedu in Kuzhalmannam, on the National Highway-47. The appellants are the parents of the deceased who was aged 27 years. The deceased who was working as a Sales Executive in Bharat Shell Ltd. was driving his Maruti 800 car bearing Registration No.KL-13/E-7463 from Kochi to Erode. While the deceased was trying to overtake a bus, the car hit on a lorry bearing Registration No.GJ-3/V-8666 owned, driven and insured by respondents 1 to 3, which came in the opposite direction. It is alleged in the claim petition that, due to darkness all around, all the vehicles plying on the road have switched on the headlights, except the lorry driven by the 2nd respondent. When the lorry reached the place of accident, the 2nd respondent suddenly switched on the headlights and halted the lorry, blurring the vision of the deceased who was driving the Maruti car. Therefore, the appellants contended that the accident occurred due to the callousness and negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent and that, the mishap would not have occurred if the 2nd respondent halted the lorry on the extreme left side of the mud margin, instead of halting it partially on the tar road and partially on the mud margin. In the accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries, who succumbed to the injuries on the spot of accident. Claiming a total compensation of 50,00,000/- under different heads, the appellants filed claim petition before the Tribunal, under Section 166 of the Act.

2. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2, namely, the owner and driver of the lorry remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent insurer filed a written statement contending that, the rashness and negligence attributed against the 2nd respondent is incorrect and that, the appellants may be put to strict proof of the fact that the accident took place in the manner and in the circumstances as alleged in the petition. The specific contention taken by the 3rd respondent insurer in Para.5 of the written statement is that, at the time of accident the deceased was trying to overtake a bus which was proceeding in front of him and in that process he went to the extreme wrong side and dashed against a lorry bearing Registration No.GJ-3/V-8666, which was parked on the side of the road. The Police has registered a case and on investigation it was found that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident. As the charge stood abated on account of his death, a final report to that effect was also filed before the Magistrate Court. Therefore, the 3rd respondent insurer contended that, there is no contributory negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent driver of the lorry and as such, the appellants are not entitled for any compensation from the 3rd respondent. By order passed in I.A.No.2227 of 2006, the Tribunal permitted the 3rd respondent insurer to take all defences available to the insured and contest the claim, as provided under Section 170 of the Act.

3. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A16 were marked on the side of the appellants and one Ganesh who stated to have witnessed the accident was examined as PW1. On the side of the respondents Exts.B1 to B4 were marked. The respondents have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence.

4. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself and as such, the appellants are not entitled to make a claim for compensation. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellants are before this