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%.

JUDGMENT :

(S. SOUNTHAR, J.)

These two civil miscellaneous appeals are filed against the award passed by the Tribunal in MCOP No.391 of 2016, dated 06.02.2020.

2. Since both the appeals have arisen out of the same accident, these appeals are taken up for hearing together.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

4. It is the case of the claimants that the husband of the first claimant and son of the claimants 2 and 3 namely Prabakaran died in a road accident that had occurred on 30.03.2016. According to the claimants, the deceased was riding a two wheeler on Walajah - Sholinghur Road in a careful manner and while he was standing behind the lorry, belonging to the second respondent and insured with the third respondent, opposite to the Assistant Primary Education Office, a bus belonging to the first respondent Corporation came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler. As a result of accident, the said Prabakaran received multiple injuries and died on the way to hospital. Therefore, the claimants preferred a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- before the Tribunal.

5. The first respondent Corporation filed a counter and stated that due to the road maintenance work, a branch of tree was cut off and it fallen in front of the lorry, belonging to the second respondent. Hence, the driver of the lorry applied brake and stopped the vehicle. The deceased, who came in the two wheeler, due to sudden happening in the road, lost his control and hit against the back side of the lorry. On seeing the happenings, the driver of the Corporation bus applied brake and inspite of the same, the bus slightly touched the two wheeler of the deceased and hence the accident had occurred. According to the first respondent, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus.

6. The second respondent, owner of the lorry remained exparte and the claim petition was contested by the insurer of the lorry on the ground that entire negligence was on the part of the driver of the bus, who dashed against the vehicle of the deceased.

7. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant was examined as PW1 and an eye witness to the accident was examined as PW2. On the side of the claimants, 18 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. An official of the third respondent/ insurance company was examined as RW1 and the driver of the first respondent Corporation bus was examined as RW2. The charge sheet filed against the driver of the bus was marked as Ex.R1.

8. On appreciation of evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the bus and the lorry were liable for the accident and fixed negligence at 50% each. The compensation payable to the claimants was quantified at Rs.30,31,000/- . Aggrieved by the fixation of 50% negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry as well as the bus, the first respondent, owner of the bus and the third respondent, insurer of the lorry have filed these appeals in CMA Nos.566 of 2021 and 1700 of 2021 respectively.

9. The appellant in CMA No.1700 of 2021 would submit that absolutely there was no evidence available on record to suggest that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and therefore, the Tribunal committed an error in fixing 50% negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. It is his contention that entire negligence was on the part of the driver of the Transpo