Claimants may recover full compensation from any joint tortfeasor despite established contributory negligence; insurers may recover proportionate amounts based on negligence findings.

JUDGMENT :

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

[MACA Nos.623/2013, 2022/2013, 2023/2013, 2025/2013, 2389/2013, 2390/2013]

All these appeals arise from the very same accident that occurred on 12.10.2012 and against the common award in O.P.(MV) Nos 1212, 1232 and 1236 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. Since the cause of action is the same, these appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. For brevity, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the tribunal.

2. M.A.C.A No.623 of 2013 is filed by the 3rd respondent/insurer of the lorry, in OP(MV)No.1236/2011 challenging the finding of the tribunal directing the insurer to pay the entire compensation awarded, though there was a finding of contributory negligence at the ratio 50:50 on the part of the driver of the car and the driver of the lorry. M.A.C.A Nos 2022 and 2023 of 2013 are filed by the 4^th respondent in OP(MV) Nos 1232 of 2011 and 1236 of 2011 challenging the finding of contributory negligence attributed to him. MACA No. 2025 of 2013 is filed by the claimant in OP(MV) 1212/2011, who is the fourth respondent in other original petitions seeking enhancement of compensation and challenging the contributory negligence attributed against him. M.A.C.A. Nos.2389 of 2013 and 2390 of 2013 is filed by the claimants in OP(MV) 1232 of 2011 and 1236 of 2011, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

3. According to the claimants, on 15.07.2010 at about 9.00 am., while the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.1212 of 2011, Mr.Jospeh was driving the car bearing Reg.No.KL-7-BG-1062 carrying his wife Dr.Rebecca Thomas and daughter Ms.Betzie Joseph as passengers from north to south along M.C.Road and when they reached Nilamel junction, the car collided with the lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-2-F-684 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent, whereby they sustained serious injuries and his wife and daughter later succumbed to the injuries. The claimants/legal heirs approached the tribunal claiming compensation in the above claim petitions.

4. The respondents 1 to 3 are owner, driver and insurer of the lorry. The respondents 4 and 5 are the driver and insurer of the car. The respondents 1 and 4 were set ex- parte before the tribunal. The 2^nd respondent filed a written statement denying his negligence in causing the accident and disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. The 3^rd respondent filed a written statement admitting the policy but denying the liability. It was further contended that there were policy violations. The 5^th respondent filed a written statement admitting the policy but denying the liability. It was also contended that the insured failed to report the accident and did not produce the vehicle documents or the 4^th respondent’s driving licence for verification. Pws 1 to 4 were examined. Exts.A1 to A22 and Exts.X1 to X3 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs.2,47,656/- in O.P.(MV) No. 1212 of 2011,Rs.3,00,000/- in O.P (MV) No.1232 of 2011 and Rs.11,88,000/- in O.P.(MV) No.1236 of 2011 as compensation under different heads after deduction of 50% contributory negligence, with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the respondents. Challenging the award in OP(MV) N0.1236/2011, the insurance company has come up in appeal with M.A.C.A. No.623 of 2013 and the claimants in the original petitions have come up in appeal dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and challenging the finding of contributory negligence on the fourth respondent owner/driver of the car.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants in the respective appeals and the learned Stand