The court upheld the liability of vehicle owners and the insurance company for compensation based on established negligence and application of the multiplier method for calculating losses.

JUDGMENT :

J. NISHA BANU, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated December 11, 2018 passed in M.C.O.P.No.195 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam, ['Tribunal' for short] the third respondent / Insurance Company preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as per their rank in the Motor Claim Original Petition.

Petitioner's case

3. The case of the petitioner / claimant is that on October 24, 2012 at 1.30 pm, the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider in the motorcycle bearing registration no.TN 36 J 8283 driven by the fourth respondent on the left side of the road towards East to west in Perundurai to Thingalur road, at Thudupathi near Thulukkampalayam in a normal speed by following traffic rules. At that time the first respondent drove the lorry bearing registration No. TN 30 U 5271 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle. Due to the accident the claimant suffered multiple fractures in his right leg. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was taken to KMCH hospital, Erode. Accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. A criminal case was also registered against the first respondent. The first respondent admitted the offence and remitted the fine amount on January 3, 2013. The claimant was admitted in the hospital more than 34 days as in-patient in the hospital and during the said period surgery was performed five times. During one of the Surgery performed on the right leg, a steel plate was fixed. The claimant spent huge amount towards medical expenses. Further the doctor advised the claimant to undergo two more surgeries on the right leg and he has to spend huge amount in this regard. The claimant is not yet recovered from the grievous injuries and fractures sustained by him in the accident. At the time of the accident the claimant was 36 years old and he owned agricultural land where he is doing agricultural work. That apart he owned Omini van bearing registration No.TN 36 T 6354 and he was driving the van for hire. Due to the accident, he was enable to drive the Omini van, hence he sold the same. He was earning not less than 40,000/- per month, from the Omini van as well as the agricultural income. Accordingly, he seeks 25,00,000/- lakhs as compensation from the respondents 1 and 2.

4. The first respondent is the driver of the lorry who caused the alleged accident and the second respondent is the owner of the lorry. The third respondent is the insurer of the second respondent’s lorry. The fourth respondent is the rider on which the claimant was a pillion rider. The fifth respondent is the insurance company of the fourth respondent's motor vehicle. The respondents 4 and 5 were added as a formal parties but no relief was sought against them.

5. The respondents 1, 2 & 4 were set exparte before the Tribunal.

Third respondent's case

6. The 3rd respondent – Insurance Company filed counter stating that the first respondent/driver drove the lorry slowly by following all the traffic rules and regulations. At that time the rider of the motorcycle came in the wrong side of the road, unable to control his vehicle, suddenly moved into the middle of the road and invited the accident. There is no fault on the part of the driver of the lorry/first respondent. Therefore, the owner and insurance company of the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN 36 J 8283 i.e. respondents 4 and 5 are equally liable for paying compensation. As it is