Point of law: if the vehicle which is running behind the heavy vehicle, must maintain the proper distance if the proper distance is not maintained then the whole negligence shall be determined on the part of rear vehicle in regard to the occurrence of accident in question. In addition no evidence in regard to the seizing of truck in question on the place of occurrence and taking into police custody the vehicles from the place of occurrence and getting done their technical survey is not available on place of occurrence.

JUDGMENT :

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order dated 18.07.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.281 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam.)

1. The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited is the appellant. Challenging the award, dated 18.07.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.281 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, is filed.

2. In the said M.C.O.P, the claimants, who are the respondents 1 and 2 herein, have made the claim as compensation for the death of one Ramanikumar, who died in the accident that occurred on 03.04.2010. The respondents 1 and 2 are the mother and father of the deceased.

3. The brief facts relevant for the consideration of the above case are that on 03.04.2010, when the deceased travelling along with his friends and relatives in a Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.TN39-W-3669 from Pulikarai to Salem, in spite of giving warning, the Driver of the Tata Sumo, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and near Sanisanthai, a Lorry bearing Registration No.KA01-C-6109 was parked in the middle of the Highway without any signal. On seeing the lorry, the Driver of the Tata Sumo applied brake. In spite of the efforts taken by the Driver of the Tata Sumo, the Tata Sumo dashed against the lorry. In the said accident, the deceased Ramanikumar died on the spot. In this regard, F.I.R was registered against the Driver of the Lorry in Crime No.273 of 2010 under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of I.P.C on the file of Thoppur Police Station. The respondents 1 and 2 /claimants, as legal heirs of the deceased, has filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

4. Resisting the Claim Petition, Appellant - Insurance Company, Insurer of the Tata Sumo, has filed counter contending that the accident occurred only due to the reckless act of the Driver of the Lorry and the allegation made in the claim petition are not true and correct. The Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation and the quantum of compensation claimed by Claimants is highly excessive and without any basis.

5. Before the Tribunal, mother of the deceased – Rajammal was examined herself as P.W.1 besides examining two witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked on the side of the claimants. On the side of the Insurance Company, three witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 to 3 and Ex.R1 was marked.

6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the Driver of the lorry. The Tribunal further held that being insurer of the offending vehicle, the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and had awarded a total compensation of Rs.19,91,568/- under various heads.

7. Challenging the award of the Tribunal, questioning only the negligence fixed on the Driver of the lorry, the appellant/Insurance Company has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company argued that the lorry was parked with danger lights blinking on it and the Driver of the Tata Sumo only invited the accident without noticing the parked vehicle and therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. In Support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Nishan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through Regional Manager reported in 2018 (6) SCC 765, wherein it has been held as follows:

“11. The moot question is whether the Tribunal committed any error in answering Issue 1 against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. The Tribunal, while answer