IMPORTANT POINT
In accidents involving multiple vehicles, liability must be apportioned based on the degree of negligence of each party, and insurers are responsible for compensating claimants accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

[Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award and decree dated 01.12.2022 in MCOP Nos.1133 & 1250 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.]

These appeals arise out of a single accident and hence, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common order.

2. CMA Nos.566 and 784 of 2024 have been filed by the Insurance Company and CMA No.1650 of 2024 has been filed by the claimant against the Award passed by the Tribunal in MCOP No.1133 of 2015, dated 01.12.2022.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. The other claim petitions that were filed in MCOP Nos.196, 197, 198 of 2011 and MCOP No.1568 of 2012 became a subject matter of challenge in CMA No.860 to 862 of 2022 and 3270 of 2019. These appeals were filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd., The Division Bench after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on careful perusal of the Award passed by the Tribunal passed a common judgement on 16.06.2023 and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder :

15. Therefore, it is a clear case of violation of permit condition. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability only on the insured KPN travels on the other hand erroneously fastened the liability on the appellant/Insurance Company.

16. On the point of negligence, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would contend that the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-23-D-2457 was also responsible for the accident. For the reason that the two lorry drivers were raising each other in a rash and negligent manner and due to which the accident occurred and therefore, the two lorry drivers are equally liable for the accident and taking into consideration the manner of accident there must be equal apportionment of liability between three vehicles involved in the accident. On perusal of the FIR it reveals that the FIR was registered against the drivers of the three vehicles involved in the accident. The reason attributed by the tribunal for exonerating the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-23-D-2457 cannot be accepted. There is no contra evidence to establish that the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-23-D-2457 was not responsible for the accident. The evidence of R.W.2 also supports the contention of the appellant. Therefore, taking into consideration the manner of accident, this Court thinks fit the reasonable apportionment of liability should be fixed. Admittedly, the place of accident is National Highway road and the lorries were driven in front of the Omni bus. While so, if the driver of the Omni bus had drove the vehicle in a sufficient distance, he could have avoided the said accident. Therefore, a major apportionment of liability should be fixed on the Omni bus.

17. Since the lorry drivers also contributed to the alleged accident, this Court apportioned the liability as here under:

18. With regard to quantum of compensation, there is no dispute. In view of aforesaid discussions there can be no scope for doubt to hold that when an accident takes place on account of composite negligence of two or more motor vehicles the claimants are entitled to proceed against all the insured and the insurers of the offending vehicles in accordance to the liabilities apportioned as above. The above Insurance Companies are directed to make the payment of entire amount of compensation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order awarded by the Tribunal in accordance to the apportioned liabilities and thereafter realize from the owner of the Omni bus involved in the accident, since there is violatio