The failure to observe driving regulations does not necessarily constitute negligence, and the effect given to the said failure must necessarily depend on the facts of each case.

This appeal is against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Tirunelveli, in MCTOP No. 50 of 1989 granting compensation, of Rs. 45,000/- to the claimants, who are the respondents 1 to 3 herein, for the death of one Devi, (who is the widow of the first respondent herein and mother of the respondents 2 and 3 herein) in the motor accident that took place on 30.10.1988 at about 4 am. By the said award the said compensation is made payable by the appellants herein on the one hand and the fourth respondent Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Limited on the other hand, in the ratio of 50:50 Admittedly the bus TML 9935 of the fourth respondent herein, while it was going on the road, in its trip from Coimbatore to Nagercoil, hit the stationary lorry TNL 9198 which was parked on the road, and, as a result of the said accident, the abovesaid Devi, who was travelling in the bus, got injured and died in the hospital subsequently. The abovesaid lorry belongs to the first appellant herein and the insurer thereof is the second appellant. They were respectively respondents 2 and 3 in the Tribunal below while the fourth respondent herein was the first respondent in the Tribunal below. In view of the abovesaid accident and the resultant death, the abovesaid claimants filed the abovesaid MCTOP No. 50 of 1989 seeking a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh from the fourth respondent herein as well as the appellants herein.

2. The only point argued by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants should not have been fastened with any liability, that only the fourth respondent herein should have been made liable solely, and that at any rate, the apportionment of liability cannot be in the ratio of 50:50 but that it should be 75:25 between the fourth respondent and the appellants herein respectively. To substantiate this contention, the learned counsel drew our attention to the finding of the Tribunal below ho lding that the driver of the abovesaid bus, viz., R.W. 1 was negligent. The relevant observation of the Tribunal below giving out the said finding is as follows:—

Tamil

However, after making the abovesaid statement, the Tribunal also makes the following statement:

Tamil

and thereby comes to the conclusion that the appellants are also liable along with the fourth respondent herein. The learned counsel points out that after coming to the above-referred-to finding expressed in the first of the abovesaid two statements, the Tribunal below has no justification to hold the appellants also liable.

3. There is force in this argument of the learned counsel. A mere plea by the claimants is not enough to hold that the appellants are also liable. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W. 2, the only eye witness to the accident, who is the brother of the deceased Devi and who was travelling alongwith her in the abovesaid bus when the accident took place, is as follows:—

Tamil

Further, he also deposed that

Tamil

All these depositions were in the chief-examination itself. So according to the only eye witness to the accident, the negligence was only with the fourth respondent i.e., bus driver. The other witness on the side of the claimants is admittedly not present at the spot when the accident took place. He no doubt deposed inter alia that he sent the deceased and her brother (P.W. 2) in the abovesaid bus for going to Nagercoil. In the cross-examination of P.W. 1 there was no suggestion that P.W. 2 did not go in the said bus alongwith the deceased. However, curiously, the counsel for the corporation put a suggestion to P.W. 2 alone that P.W. 2 did not travel along with the deceased in the abovesaid bus. So the said suggestion to P.W. 2 cannot be given any weight and it should be taken that P.W. 2 travelled alongwith the deceased and that he witnessed the accident. P.W. 2 apart from what he had stated in the chief-examination as stated above in his cross-examination by the first appellant admitted that the abovesaid first appellants lorry was p