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.

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated September 6, 2022 passed by the 'Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Special Subordinate Court, Cuddalore' ['Tribunal' for short] in M.C.O.P. No.1525 of 2016, the fourth respondent therein / Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Motor Accident Claims Original Petition.

BRIEF FACTS PUT FORTH BY THE PETITIONER / INJURED

3. On January 10, 2016 at about 02.30 a.m., while the petitioner / injured was travelling in the Car bearing Registration No.TN-22-CH-9267 driven by one Ravi [who also passed away in the accident] on Chennai- Trichy National Highways near Chepauk Komugi Bridge, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-34-D-3677, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the Car and consequently, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and multiple fractures all over his body including head. According to the petitioner / injured, at the time of accident, he was a 24 years old Pandit earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. Before the Tribunal, owner and insurer of the said car, as well as owner and insurer of the said lorry, were arrayed as Respondent Nos.1 to 4 respectively. Stating that the lorry was insured with the 4^th respondent and the accident occurred due to the reckless driving of driver of the lorry, the petitioner filed the Claim Petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) along with interest and costs from the respondents.

RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 3

4. Respondent Nos.1 & 3 are the owners of the said car and the said lorry respectively. They did not appear and choose to contest the petition and hence, were set ex-parte before the Tribunal.

SECOND RESPONDENT’S CASE

5. It is the case of the second respondent that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. TN-34-D-3677, as he drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner, causing the accident. In the absence of proof of negligence on the part of the car driver, the 2^nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner must establish his age, income, and occupation. The validity of driving licence of driver of the car, its Registration Certificate, Permit etc., was disputed. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered with a false narration of facts. Stating that the compensation claimed is unsustainable and excessive, the 2^nd respondent prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.

FOURTH RESPONDENT’S CASE

6. It is the case of the fourth respondent that the allegation that the lorry driver was the root cause of the accident is false. As per FIR and charge sheet, the car driver was responsible for the accident. Since the car driver / deceased – Ravi died in the accident, the case was closed as abated. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent – insurer of the car is liable to compensate the petitioner. Consequently, the claim against the 4th respondent / insurer of the lorry is not maintainable, and therefore, the 4^th respondent has prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition against it.

TRIBUNAL

7. The enquiry was conducted jointly with that of M.C.O.P. No.1524 of 2016. On the side of the petitioner, petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1 and the 1^st petitioner in M.C.O.P. No.1524 of 2016, namely Vignesh, who is an injured witness to the accident, was examined as P.W.2, and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.21 were marked. On the side of the respondents, one Santhiyalakshmi, Legal Officer of the 4^th respondent was examined as R.W. 1 and copy of charge sheet was marked as Ex-R.1. Disability Certificate No.2052, iss