Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR, Dr.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE, JJ
Micro Office, United India Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
R. Menaga – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Delivered by Dr. A.D. Maria clete, J)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2022, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Krishnagiri, in M.C.O.P. No. 1032 of 2019.
2. The facts of the case in brief is that on 09.01.2019, when the deceased, husband of the first respondent was driving the Eicher Lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-11-7032, belonging to the fifth respondent and insured with the sixth respondent, in the Krishnagiri Hosur NH Road towards Hosur near Melumalal Kanavai Bridge, the driver of the Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Reg. No.TN-88-A-4179 belonging to the seventh respondent and insured with the appellant, all of a sudden stopped the Lorry without any signal as a result of which, the deceased hit against the lorry back side and sustained grievous injuries on his vital organs and died on the way to Hospital. The claimant alleged that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Ashok Leyland lorry. However, based on a false complaint lodged by the driver of the ongoing lorry, the Gurubarapalli
The court affirmed that negligence lies solely with the driver of the other vehicle, and an FIR against the deceased does not constitute conclusive proof of negligence.
The court established that the burden of proof lies on the party alleging negligence, and failure to maintain sufficient distance does not automatically imply liability without evidence.
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....
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to award compensation only under 'no fault liability' after determining that the deceased's negligence, including driving under the influence, was the primary....
The court clarified negligence apportionment in a vehicular accident, determining primary liability lay with the bus driver at 80% and contributing negligence of the lorry driver at 20%.
The insurance company failed to prove negligence on the car driver's part; the lorry driver was found responsible for the accident. Compensation of Rs.6,04,830 was deemed just and reasonable.
Contributory negligence was established, leading to the apportionment of 50% contributory negligence on each driver.
Liability for vehicular accidents entails that claimants can seek compensation from negligent parties, with joint tortfeasors both liable for full damages.
The absence of warning signals while parking a vehicle constitutes sole negligence, making the vehicle owner fully liable for resultant accidents, with no contributory negligence from the victim.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
