The court established that negligence in parking without indication led to liability for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, with a modified award based on notional income.

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated July 13, 2020, passed by the ‘Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Vaniyambadi’ (‘Tribunal’ for short) in M.C.O.P.Nos.125 and 126 of 2014, the second respondent therein / Insurance Company, namely the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd., has preferred these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals challenging its liability and the quantum of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their rank in the Motor Claims Original Petition [M.C.O.P.].

3. Case of petitioners in both the Claim Petitions i.e., M.C.O.P. Nos.125 & 126 of 2014, is that:

(i) On September 29, 2012, at about 4.30 am., the husband of the first petitioner in M.C.O.P. No.126 of 2014, namely Saravanan was driving a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-23-BZ-6126 belonging to the third respondent in M.C.O.P.No.125 of 2014, along with an additional driver, namely Theerthakumar, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.125 of 2014.

(ii) While nearing Gahonge Village on Mumbai to Pune Express Highway service road, the first respondent being the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.MH-11-AL-6975, had stationed the said lorry in the middle of the road, without any signboard or indication. Upon realising the same, Saravanan tried to halt the lorry which he was driving and prevent any mis-happenings, but his efforts went in vein when he dashed behind the first respondent’s lorry. Saravanan succumbed to the accident on the spot. The additional driver, namely Theerthakumar, the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.125 of 2014 sustained injuries in the accident.

(iii) The cleaner of the first respondent’s lorry preferred a false complaint about the accident and a case in Crime No.210 of 2012 was registered under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304 (A) and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the deceased- Saravanan. Whereas, actually the accident took place only due to negligence on part of the first respondent, who had stationed the lorry negligently in the middle of the road without any indication or signboard.

(iv) At the time of accident, the first respondent’s lorry bearing Registration No.MH-11-AL-6975 was insured with the second respondent / insurance company, and the third respondent’s lorry bearing registration No.TN 23 BZ 6126, driven by the deceased - Saravanan, was insured with the fourth respondent / insurance company. Hence, the respondents 2 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to petitioners in both the Claim Petitions.

First, third and fourth respondents :

4. Despite notice to the first and third respondents, they did not choose to contest the original petition. Hence, they were called absent and set ex parte by the Tribunal. Further, though the fourth respondent appeared through counsel, he did not file counter.

Second respondent's case :

5. The second respondent filed a counter stating that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the third respondent’s driver / deceased – Saravanan. First Information Report (FIR) was registered only against the deceased - Saravanan. The rough sketch also substantiate that the accident happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased – Saravanan. The deceased - Saravanan was a tort-feasor. Further, the first respondent’s lorry was not insured with the second respondent and further, its owner-cum-driver did not possess a valid driving license at the time of accident and thus, violated the policy conditions. Hence, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners in both M.C.O.Ps. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the original petitions.

Tribunal :

6. During joint trial of both M.C.O.Ps, on the side of petitioners, the first petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.126 of 2014 / wife of the deceased - Saravanan was examined as P.W.1, and the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.125 of 2014 / additional driver was examined as P.W.2 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.18 were marked. O