Insurer not raising any defena befone accidents claim Tribunal

Ratnam, J.:

These appeals have been preferred by the New India Assurance Limited against the common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Ramanatha-puram at Madurai, in M.C.O.P.Nos.481 and 480 of 1988 respectively. stated, the circumstances giving rise to these appeals are as follows:

The first respondent both the appeals is the widow of R.Durairaj. Respondents 2 to 4 in C.M.A.No.313 of 1991 the sons of R.Durairaj and the first respondent in these appeals. The second respondent C.M.A.No.312 of 1991, who is also the fifth respondent in C.M.ANo.313 of 1991, is the of the lorry bearing registration No.MDA.6672, insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, which is the fourth respondent in C.M.A.No.312 of 1991 the seventh respondent in C.M.A.No.313 of 1991. The third respondent in C.M.A.No.312 1991, who is the sixth respondent in C.M.A.No.313 of 1991, is the owner of the car registration No.TNU 5580, insured with the appellant in these appeals. On 11.3.1988, R.Durairaj with his wife, sons, uncle and other relations was proceeding in the car TNU belonging to his uncle I.Masilamani Nadar from Virudhunagar towards Sivakasi. When car was just approaching Virudhunagar bye-pass road, the lorry MDA 6672 proceeding Sattur towards Madurai, according to the case of the first respondent and respondent in C.M.A.No.312 and 313 of 1991, was driven rashly and negligently by its driver and against the car TNU 5580 on its left side. It was also alleged that the driver of the car 5580 had driven the car in a rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic and the accident took place as a result of the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. In that accident, R.Durairaj died and his wife Kamalam, who is the first respondent in appeals, sustained some injuries. In M.C.O.P.No.480 of 1988 respondents 1 to C.M.A.No.313 of 1991 claimed that the accident in which R.Durairaj lost his life was outcome of the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles and that deceased R.Durairaj, who was aged about 57 years at the time of his death, commanded a large and lucrative practice as an Auditor and owing to his sudden death, respondents 1 to 4 in C.M.A.No.313 1991 had lost the benefit of not only the earnings of deceased R.Durairaj for at least years, but had also suffered severe shock and agony resulting in loss of consortium wife and total loss of prospects to the sons of the deceased regarding their future profession. Towards compensation for loss of expectation of life and future loss of and future happiness etc., loss of consortium, mental shock and agony and loss status and future prospects, etc., respondents 1 to 4 in C.M.ANo.313 of 1991 claimed compensation in a sum of Rs.10,00,000 would be awardable, though they restricted claim to Rs.7,00,000. The first respondent in C.M.A.No.312 of 1991,who sustained the very same accident, prayed in M.C.O.P.No.481 of 1988 that she should be awarded sum of Rs.50,000 as compensation for the injuries sustained by her, pain and permanent disability resulting in her not being able to do household duties and participate Badminton tournaments etc.

2. In the counter filed by the appellant in M.C.O.P.No.480 of 1988, it pleaded that the of the lorry bearing registration No.MDA 6672 drove the vehicle in a reckless manner sounding the horn and observing the traffic rules and had entered the road junction Virudhunagar bye-pass road without noticing the vehicle coming from his right side Virudhunagar-Sivakasi road and the accident had taken place only owing to the negligent driving of the lorry MDA 6672. Besides, the appellant also raised some regarding the quantum of compensation claimed by respondents 1 to 4 in C.M.A.No.313 1991. Likewise, the appellant, in his counter in M.C.O.P.No.481 of 1988, reiterated lorry bearing registration No.MDA 6672 was exclusively responsible for the accident rash and negligent driving of its driver and that the compensation prayed for in respec