The court ruled that the bus driver was solely responsible for the accident due to rash and negligent driving, and the insurance company was not liable for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

R. POORNIMA, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/3^rd respondent insurance company, challenging the award, dated 14.10.2009 passed in MCOP No.194 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (III Additional District Court, PCR), Madurai.

2.Brief facts of the petition filed by the claimants before the Tribunal are as follows:-

(i) On 05.05.2003 at about 17.30 hours, the deceased travelled in the 2^nd respondent's lorry bearing Registration No.TN-27-V -1606 from Madurai to Chinnamanur. The said lorry was driven by its driver slowly from east to west by keeping to the left side of the road. When the lorry was nearing Karumathur Arulanandar College, the 1^st respondent's driver drove the transport bus bearing registration No.TN-57-N-0856 from west to east in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the 2^nd respondent's lorry bearing registration No.TN-27-V-1606 and a car bearing registration No.TN-01-F-5349 belongs to the 4^th respondent. Due to the said impact, the deceased succumbed to injuries on the spot.

(ii) Over the occurrence, a case in Crime No.94 of 2003 was registered by the Chekanurani Police Station for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC against the driver of the 1^st respondent's lorry and on completion of investigation, investigating agency filed a final report, reporting that the accused/driver was died and the same was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti and the same was closed.

(iii) The deceased was aged about 35 years and he was working as a Junior Assistant in the Assistant Elementary Educational Office, Chinnamamur, Theni District and thereby earning a sum of Rs.4,028/- per month.

(iv) The accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent's driver alone. The deceased contributed a sum of Rs.5,000/- p.m to the 1^st petitioner for family maintenance. Due to the sudden demise of the deceased, the 1^st petitioner lost her loving son and his love and affection.

(v) 1^st , 2^nd , and 4^th respondents are owners of the vehicles bearing registration Nos.TN-57-N-0856, TN-27-V-1606 and TN-01-F-5349 respectively. 2^nd and 4^th respondents' vehicles are duly insured with 3^rd and 5^th respondents respectively. The 1^st respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards compensation.

3. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent/Transport Corporation filed a counter-affidavit denying the manner of the accident as alleged in the claim petition and disputed its liability to pay compensation. The first respondent alleged that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and car, hence the 2^nd and 5^th respondents are alone liable to pay compensation to the petitioners, and not by them.

4. Before the Tribunal, the third respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the manner of the accident by stating that the deceased was travelling in the lorry bearing registration No. TN 27-V-1606 at the time of the accident as an unauthorised passenger. Since the owner of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-27-V-1606 had violated the requirement of the policy condition, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. It further stated that at the time of the accident, the first respondent's bus driver drove the bus bearing registration No.TN.57-N-0856 rashly and negligently dashed against the lorry and against the Car bearing registration No.TN-01-F-5349. So the first respondent is alone liable to pay compensation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Before the Tribunal, the fifth respondent filed a counter- affidavit