The court established that the driver of the lorry in which the petitioner was a passenger was negligent, leading to an enhanced compensation of Rs.10,66,549/- for the injuries sustained.

JUDGMENT :

(C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.)

The 3^rd respondent in O.P.(M.V.)No. 1102/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, is the appellant and the petitioner in the O.P. is the Cross Objector. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.12.2010.

2. According to the petitioner, on 26.12.2010 at about 1.30 a.m., he was travelling in the lorry bearing registration No.KL-4 S-2039 along Karoor -Salem NH17 public road as cleaner of the said lorry driven by the 4^th respondent. When they reached the place of occurrence, another lorry bearing registration No.TN-28V-5153 driven by the 1^st respondent collided with the lorry in which he was travelling and as a result of which, he sustained serious injuries. The 1^st respondent is the driver, the 2^nd respondent is the owner and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the lorry TN-28V-5153. 4^th respondent is the driver, 5^th respondent is the owner and 6^th respondent is the insurer of the lorry KL- 4S-2039. He filed the OP claiming a compensation of Rs10,00,000/-.

3. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement, admitting the accident and denying the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. It was further contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle insured.

4. The evidence in the case consists of documentary evidence Exhibits A1 to A27, and C1.

5. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,22,975/-.

6. Aggrieved by the above award, the 3^rd respondent preferred this appeal. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner filed the Cross Objection.

7. Now the points that arise for consideration are the following:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of 1^st respondent as found by the Tribunal?

2. Whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of 4^th respondent as contended by the 3^rd respondent?

3. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

8. Heard Sri.V.P.K Panicker, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri.George A Cherian, learned Standing Counsel for the 5^rd respondent and Sri. A. T. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the 6^th respondent/cross objector.

9. The Point: The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent is that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 4^th respondent and as such the 3^rd respondent is not liable to indemnify the compensation likely to be awarded in this case. It was argued that the lorry TN-28V-5153 was going in front of the lorry KL 04 S 2039, that when the driver of lorry TN-28V-5153 applied sudden break, the lorry which came from behind hit on the rear side of the vehicle in it’s front and therefore, the entire negligence was on the side of 4^th respondent. In support of the above argument, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nishan Singh and Ors v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Regional Manager & Ors [2018 (6) SCC 765]. In the above decision, a maruti car dashed against a truck was running ahead of it, resulting in death of one person and injuries to the other passengers in the car. In that case also the police registered case against the truck driver and filed final report against him. Three witnesses were also examined to prove the negligence of the truck driver. Even then, the Tribunal found that it was the duty of the driver of the car to maintain sufficient distance from the truck in order to avoid a possible clash with the vehicle moving ahead if it and found that the negligence was on the part of the driver of the Maruti car. The above finding of the Tribunal was upheld by the High Court in the light of Rule 23