In cases of composite negligence, a claimant can recover full compensation from any one tort-feasor, regardless of whether all parties are impleaded.

JUDGMENT :

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

These appeals are filed challenging the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Perambalur in MCOP.Nos.503, 540, 513, 541, 514, 506, 510, 546, 543, 549, 511, 512, 504, 507, 542, 545, 508, 544, 509 of 2017 respectively.

2. CMA.No.2843 of 2022 is arising out of fatal accident and other appeals are injury cases.

3. The claimants in CMA.No.2843 of 2022 are the wife and children of the deceased Ganesan, who travelled in a Maxi Cab Van bearing Registration No.TN-63M-9628. The claimants in other appeals are injured passengers who travelled in very same Maxi Cab Van.

4. According to the claimants, the deceased Ganesan and other injured claimants travelled in the above mentioned Maxi Cab Van from Chennai to Trichy on 20.07.2017. On that day at about 04.30 a.m., when the Maxi Cab Van came near Roever College Bus Stop, Perambalur District, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-61-3898 belonged to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent in the claim petition was parked on the left hand side of the road without any signal and hence the Maxi Cab Van dashed against the first respondent's lorry. As a result of the accident, the husband of the first claimant and father of the claimants 2 to 4 namely Ganesan sustained grievous injuries and died. The claimants in other appeals sustained simple and grievous injuries. Therefore, totally 22 claim petitions were filed seeking compensation. These appeals are filed challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in respect of 19 claim petitions.

5. The first respondent owner of the lorry remained ex-parte and the claim petitions were resisted by the insurer of the lorry, the second respondent in the original petitions and the appellant herein. It was the case of the appellant/insurer of the lorry that more than 27 persons travelled in the Maxi Cab Van, over and above the permitted number of passengers and hence it caused inconvenience to the driver, which resulted in the accident. It was stated that only 13 passengers (12+1) are permitted to travel in the Maxi Cab Van and at the time of accident more than 27 persons travelled in the said vehicle and it would amount to violation of permit conditions. It was also stated that the driver of the lorry had parked the vehicle on the extreme left side of the road leading to Trichy, with the rear parking lamps switched on and the Maxi Cab van driver, without noticing the parked vehicle, dashed into it from the rear side. Therefore, according to the appellant/insurer of the lorry, the accident had occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Maxi Cab Van. Therefore, it sought for the dismissal of the claim petitions.

6. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined eighteen witnesses as PW.1 to PW.18 and marked sixty nine documents as Ex.P1 to P69. On behalf of the second respondent in Original Petitions/insurer of the lorry, two witnesses were examined as RW.1 and R.W2. Three documents were marked as Ex.R1 to R3. The disability certificate issued in favour of two victims in MCOP.Nos.508 and 541 of 2017 were marked as Exs.C1 and C2.

7. The Tribunal based on the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred primarily due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal also found that the driver of the Maxi Cab Van also contributed to the accident and in t