2000 Supreme(Mad) 827
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. SAMPATH
A.R.C. PARCEL SERVICE
Versus
POONGOTHAI
C.M.A.32 Of 1996
Decided On : 18-08-2000
Advocates.
Person in complete command and control of vehicle at the time of accident is liable to pay compensation.
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act (LIX of 1988), Sec.166 - Motor Accident - Liability to pay compensation- Vehicle leased out to appellant was under complete command and control of appellant at the time of accident - Appellant is liable to pay compensation.
SAMPATH, J.
( 1 ) THE respondent No. 3 in m. A. C. T. O. P. No. 168 of 1988 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at pondicherry, is the appellant in the civil miscellaneous appeal Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein filed the said petition under section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,75,000 for the death of one Muthu alias Muthukrishnan, husband of the respondent no. 1 and father of respondent nos. 2 to 5 against respondent Nos. 6 to 9 and the appellant herein. The respondent no. 8 was the respondent No. 4 in the m. A. C. T. O. P. being the mother of the deceased and the respondent No. 9 was the respondent No. 5 and it was alleged that she was the concubine of the deceased.
( 2 ) THE case of the claimants was as follows:muthu alias Muthukrishnan was travelling with the respondent No. 9 herein on his Jawa motor cycle along Pondicherryvillupuram Main Road on 22. 6. 1987 at about 15. 30 hours on the extreme left hand side when the vehicle bearing registration no. TNE 4020 belonging to the respondent no. 6 herein came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased and caused his death. The motor cycle was also completely damaged. The deceased was working as a Pump operator earning Rs. 1,196. 40 per month. He had 20 years of service still left and had promotional opportunities. He was 40 years old. He was the only bread-earner of the family. The claim was, therefore, made. The appellant was originally impleaded as the respondent No. 1 in the claim petition. However, the respondent No. 6 herein who was the actual owner of the vehicle was impleaded pursuant to the order passed in la. No. 1265 of 1991 and substituted in the place of the appellant and the appellant was made the respondent No. 3 before the tribunal. The respondent No. 6 contended that he was not the owner of the offending vehicle and, therefore, he was not liable to pay compensation. The respondent No. 7 insurance company, which was respondent no. 2 before the Tribunal contended that the offending vehicle was neither insured nor had valid FC/rc arid the driver had no valid driving licence on the date of accident. The appellant contended that the offending vehicle belonged only to the respondent no. 6 with whom it had entered into an agreement to lend it for a period of two years from the date of the agreement, that as per the agreement, the appellant was plying the lorry on contract basis and the renewal for updating of insurance and any liability in respect of the vehicle was only that of the owner, the respondent No. 6 herein and if the owner had valid renewal of insurance, the liability of the payment of compensation was vicariously shifted to the respondent No. 7 insurance company. The appellant was not liable to pay any compensation.
( 3 ) THE Tribunal framed the following points for consideration: (1) Whether the offending vehicle belonged to the respondent No. 1 or the respondent No. 3? (2) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the respondent no. 1 or due to the negligence of the deceased? (3) Whether the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased? (4) Whether the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2 and the driver possessed a valid driving licence on the date of the accident? (5) Whether the claim of compensation is exorbitant? and (6) What is the quantum and payable by whom?
( 4 ) THE Tribunal found that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry. In coming to the conclusion, the Tribunal relied on the oral evidence of the respondent No. 1 as PW 1 and also Exh. A-2 which was the copy of the accident inspection report. No appeal has been filed by the owner or the insurance company challenging this finding. The finding is, therefore, confirmed.
( 5 ) AS regards quantum, the Tribunal fixed it at Rs. 1,50,000 and apportioned the amount among the