The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of negligence, liability, and quantum of compensation in a road traffic accident under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the application of legal principles for assessing compensation in cases of death.

R. Banumathi,J.

Being aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.8,96,560/- for the death of deceased Jagadambal in the road traffic accident, Appellant – Insurance Company has filed C.M.A.No.814 of 2004. The estranged husband of deceased Jagadambal, whose Claim Petition in M.C.O.P.No.439 of 2006 was dismissed, has preferred C.R.P.No.847 of 2006. Since common points arise for consideration, both C.M.A. and revision were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this Common Judgment.

2. What would otherwise been a simple case for compensation and apportionment of compensation has become slightly complicated because of the interse dispute between the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.90 of 1995, who are the adopted daughter and mother of deceased Jagadambal and erstwhile husband – Jeyaprakasam, who is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.439 of 1996. Before we deal with the inter se dispute between the claimants, we may firstly consider the negligence and the liability to pay the compensation and also the quantum of compensation payable.

3. Therelationship between deceased Jagadambal and her husband was strained, which led to filing of matrimonial dispute, which we would refer to shortly. The deceased Jagadambal was living along with her mother and adopted daughter – Jayapriya in Dharmapuri. She was working as a staff nurse in Government Headquarters Hospital at Dharmapuri.

4. The brief facts are that on 24. 1994 at about 8.10 A.M, Jagadambal was travelling in the Annai Sathya Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN.29-226 from Mettur to Dharmapuri. While the bus was nearing Sanisandai, it has collided with the lorry bearing Registration No.TNC 5467. Due to the accident, Jagadambal had sustained fatal injuries. Deceased - Jagadambal died instantaneously on the spot. Alleging that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver as well as the lorry driver, claimants have filed M.C.O.P.No.90 of 1995 claiming compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. In the said Claim Petition, Revision Petitioner – husband of deceased Jagadambal was shown as 5th Respondent.

5. In the Claim Petition M.C.O.P.No.90 of 1995, mother of deceased – Maruthambal was examined as P.W.1 and driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. On the side of Claimants, Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal held that the Criminal case was registered only against lorry drive and held that the accident was due to negligent driving of the lorry driver and held that the Insurance Company and the owner of the lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Insofar as the compensation, Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.8,96,560/-.

6. The learned counsel for Appellant Insurance Company submitted that no independent eye witness was examined to fix negligence on the part of drivers of either vehicle. It was further argued that even though Ex.P.1 - F.I.R. was marked, the author of F.I.R. was not examined and while so based upon the interested testimony of R.W.1 – the driver of the bus, Tribunal erred in finding that the accident was due to negligence driving of lorry driver. It was further argued that the negligence ought to have been apportioned equally between lorry and bus.

7. Insofar as the question of negligence, R.W.1 – driver of the bus has clearly spoken about the negligent driving of the lorry driver which came in the opposite direction. Regarding the accident, Criminal case in Cr.No.152 of 1994 of Thoppur Police Station under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC was registered only against the lorry driver. Based upon oral evidence of R.W.1 and pointing out registration of criminal case against the lorry driver, the Tribunal has held that the accident was due to negligent driving of the lorry driver. In our considered view, no rebuttable evidence was adduced by the 2nd Respondent – owner of the lorry to substantiate their defence. In fact, the 2nd Respondent – owne