The main legal point established in the judgment is the apportionment of negligence in motor accidents and the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the common judgment and decree dated 04.04.2016, made in M.C.O.P. Nos.205, 195, 207 & 211 of 2012, on the file of the Additional District Court No.3, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Dharapuram, Tiruppur.)

Common Judgment

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the appellant- Transport Corporation against the common judgment and decree dated 04.04.2016, made in M.C.O.P. Nos.205, 195, 207 & 211 of 2012, on the file of the Additional District Court No.3, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Dharapuram, Tiruppur.

2. The parties and issue involved in all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are one and the same and hence, disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. Nos.205, 195, 207 & 211 of 2012, on the file of the Additional District Court No.3, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Dharapuram, Tiruppur. The 1st respondent/claimant filed the said claim petitions, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation for the death of Minor Pranav Kanna, Minor Suruthiksha, Kalavathi and Sudha, respectively, who died in the accident that took place on 11.09.2011, against the respondents 2 and 3 who are the driver of the Bus owned by the appellant-Transport Corporation and Insurance Company of the Santro Car in which the deceased persons traveled.

4. According to the 1st respondent, on the date of accident, at about 6.00 p.m., the deceased Minor Pranav Kanna, Minor Suruthiksha, Kalavathi and Sudha were travelling with Harihara Sudhan and Balachandran in a Santro Car bearing Registration No.TN-38-AB-1666, along the Tiruppur to Dharapuram Main road from South to North direction, driven by Harihara Sudhan in a very slow speed, cautious manner, adhering the road traffic rules and regulations. While nearing R.R.D. Mill, the 2nd respondent/driver of the Bus bearing Registration No.TN-57-N-1960 owned by the appellant- Transport Corporation who was coming in the opposite direction, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and while trying to overtake another vehicle which was proceeding ahead, came to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the Santro Car and caused the accident. In the accident, the occupants of the Santro Car sustained fatal injuries. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the 2nd respondent/driver of the Bus owned by the appellant-Transport Corporation and hence, the 1st respondent filed claim petitions against the 2nd respondent and appellant-Transport Corporation as driver and owner of the Bus respectively and 3rd respondent- Insurance Company as insurer of the Santro Car in which the deceased persons traveled.

5. The appellant-Transport Corporation and 2nd respondent jointly filed counter statement in all the claim petitions and denied all the averments made by the 1st respondent in all the claim petitions. According to the appellant and 2nd respondent, Harihara Sudhan, driver of the Santro Car, while trying to overtake another vehicle, lost control and invited accident. FIR is also registered against the deceased Harihara Sudhan. The 1st respondent, knowing fully well that the Santro Car has been insured with the 3rd respondent- Insurance Company only for Personal Accident Coverage and the claimants are not entitled for compensation more than Rs.2,00,000/-, with an ulterior motive to claim compensation, has purposefully impleaded the 2nd respondent and appellant in the claim petitions. Hence, the 2nd respondent and appellant- Transport Corporation are not liable to pay any compensation to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased, injuries sustained and treatment taken by the deceased, to claim compensation. In any event, the total compensation claimed by the 1st respondent in all the claim petitions are