The main legal point established is the liability of the insured vehicle based on the driver's admission of rash and negligent driving, leading to the court's decision to uphold the finding of negligence against the insured vehicle.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,to set aside the Decree and Judgment dated 30th July 2018 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1056 of 2011, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court at Sankagiri.)

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Decree and Judgment dated 30th July 2018 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1057 of 2011, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court at Sankagiri.

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Decree and Judgment dated 30th July 2018 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1050 of 2011, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court at Sankagiri.

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree in MCOP.No.1050 of 2011 dated 30.07.2018, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Subordinate Judge Court, Sankari.)

Common Judgment:

D. Bharatha Chakravarhy, J.

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of single motor accident and has been filed by the claimants for enhancement and by the insurance company on negligence and quantum. As such, all the appeals are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Arguments relating to negligence in all these appeals are common. The claimants in these cases contend that they started from Perinthalmanna in Kerala on 03.09.2010 at about 10.00 p.m., and on 04.09.2010, at 3.00 a.m., they were travelling on the Salem – Dharmapuri highways near Jodukuzhi Anjaneyar Temple, on account of a vehicle, the particulars of which were not traceable, dashed the car from behind and the Innova car in which they were travelling, being driven in a high speed and rash and negligent manner lost its control and rolled over to the nearby pit, on account of which, the claimants who were travelling in the car suffered various grievous injuries, for which, separate original petitions are filed claiming compensation.

3. The case of the insurance company is that even as per the averment in the First Information Report, it is only the vehicle which dashed on the Innova car from behind was responsible for the accident. Then merely because the said vehicle remained untraceable, liability cannot be fastened on the insurer of the Innova car or negligence cannot be claimed against the driver of the said Innova car.

4. With this background of rival claims regarding negligence, all these petitions were taken up for joint trial and all the four claimants who were travelling in the Innova car had categorically deposed of the above fact that the Innova car was hit from behind by the untraceable vehicle and because the Innova car was driven in a high speed and rash and negligent manner, it lost its control and resulted in the above said accident.

5. The driver of the car viz., one Mohammed Ishrath was examined as P.W.2. He had deposed to the effect that he drove the car at the time of accident. Nine persons were travelling in the said car. While so, without noticing the potholes on the road, he was driving the car in a high speed. While so, upon suddenly noticing a pothole, he applied a sudden brake and on account of which, the lorry which was coming from behind, also hit the car from the rear side and proceeded without stopping. However, he lost control and the vehicle rolled over to the pit on the side of the road. He had admitted that the most proximate reason for the accident is his applying of brake without taking adequate care especially when the vehicles were travelling on the highway. Therefore, from the evidence of the driver, it is clear that he was primarily responsible for the accident. The First Information Report was initially given as if the driver of the unknown lorry was responsible. But, however, this is not a case