The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of contributory negligence, disability, and the method for calculating compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 13.08.2010 made in M.C.O.P. No. 1338 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [Chief Judicial Magistrate] at Krishnagiri District.

1. Challenging the award passed by the Tribunal, the second respondent before the Tribunal namely National Insurance Company has preferred this appeal on the point of contributory negligence and quantum of compensation.

2. The first respondent herein filed M.C.O.P. No. 1338 of 2006 alleging that on 24.03.2005 at about 20.00 hours, when the claimant had driven the Tempo bearing Registration No. KA-12/3607 belonging to the 3rd respondent and insured with the 4th respondent, in Dharmapuri to Krishnagiri NB7 road towards Krishnagiri, proceeding near K.R.P. Dam Junction Road, the lorry bearing Registration No. KA-01AA/6060 belonging to the 2nd respondent herein and insured with the appellant herein was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without observing any rules of the road before the said Tempo and all of a sudden the driver stopped his lorry on the middle of the road without giving any signal. The claimant has not anticipated that the driver of the said lorry would stop the lorry suddenly on the middle of the road. However, the claimant applied sudden brake to avoid hit behind the said lorry. Due to the negligent act of the driver of the lorry, the tempo hit behind the lorry and that the claimant sustained severe injuries. On a complaint, a criminal case was registered against the Tempo in Cr. No. 246/2005 of Kaveripattinam Police.

3. The appellant-Insurance Company denied the alleged age, avocation and income of the claimant and also denied the negligence on the part of the lorry, which was insured with them. The fourth respondent/Insurance Company has also made similar counter statement stating that the 3rd respondent/owner of the Tempo remained ex-parte. Negligence on the part of the Tempo is denied. Claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- is denied as highly excessive and baseless. The accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the lorry. Hence, the fourth respondent is not liable to pay compensation and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. To substantiate the averments in the petition, the claimant was examined as PW-1 and the Doctor was examined as PW-2 and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the respondents before the Tribunal.

5. On consideration of both oral and documentary, the Tribunal has held that both the drivers are at negligence in the ratio of 50:50 and they equally contributed to the accident and awarded quantum of compensation at Rs. 2,98,450/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the second respondent-National Insurance Company, the insurer of the lorry vehicle which belonged to the third respondent driven by the claimant, has preferred this appeal.

6. Heard both sides and perused the records.

7. It is seen that the claimant was driving the Tempo bearing Registration No. KA-12/3607 belonging to the 3rd respondent and insured with the 4th respondent in Dharmapuri to Krishnagiri NB7 road towards Krishnagiri, proceeding near K.R.P. Dam Junction road, the lorry bearing Registration No. KA-01AA/6060 belonging to the 2nd respondent and insured with the appellant, was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without observing any rules of the road before the said Tempo and the driver all off a sudden, stopped his lorry on the middle of the road without giving any signal. The claimant has not anticipated that the driver of the said lorry would stop the lorry suddenly on the middle of the road. However, the claimant, though applied sudden brake, to avoid hit behind the said lorry, due to the negligent act of the driver of the lorry, the Tempo hit behind