In cases of composite negligence involving multiple vehicles, a claimant is entitled to recover the total awarded compensation from any of the joint tortfeasors, as their liability is joint and several, provided the fault is proven.

JUDGMENT :

P. Vadamalai, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the award, dated 19.07.2022 passed in M.C.O.P.No.218 of 2019 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/The Special Court (Forest Cases), Nagercoil. 

2.The 3 respondent/United India Insurance Company in M.C.O.P.No.218 of 2019 is the appellant herein.

3.The petitioners/claimants are respondents 1 & 2 herein, who filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.218 of 2019. The respondents 1 & 2 in M.C.O.P.No.218 of 2019 are the respondents 3 & 4 herein.

4.For the sake of convenience, the parties as arrayed in M.C.O.P.No.218 of 219 are adopted hereunder.

5.The brief facts of the case:

On 28.07.2017, the deceased Vincent Raj was travelling as a passenger in a Maruthi Alto car bearing registration number TN 74 V 7180, which was driven by one R.Vithukumar from Thirparappu - Kulasekaram road from south to north. At about 08.15 hours, when the car reached in front of Sudeer Lathe at Manchakonam, the 2^nd respondent’s lorry bearing registration No.KL 21 B 7178, coming from the opposite direction, north to south, driven by its driver/1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, hit against the Maruthi car. Due to the impact, the deceased Vincent Raj died from fatal injuries. An F.I.R. in Crime No.226 of 2017 U/s.279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC was registered against the 1st respondent/driver of the lorry by Kulasekaram Police Station. The deceased was a JCB Operator and was earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. Hence, the petitioners, who are the parents of the deceased Vincent Raj, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.

6.The respondents 1 & 2 before the Tribunal remained ex-parte.

7.The 3^rd respondent/Insurance Company objected to the claim petition and contended that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi car driver, who drove the car at the center of the road and invited the accident on head on collusion. The driver of the lorry was not responsible for the accident. Moreover, the petition is bad for the non-joinder of the owner and the insurer of the Maruthi car. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any claim from the 3^rd respondent/Insurance Company.

8.Before the Tribunal, both sides adduced oral and documentary evidence. The petitioners examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked 16 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16. On the 3^rd respondent's side, no witness was examined and no document was marked.

9.After hearing both sides and after considering the evidence, the Tribunal has held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent/driver of the 2^nd respondent’s lorry and so, the 3^rd respondent is liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal has arrived at total compensation of Rs.15,88,400/- to the petitioners with interest and cost.

10.Aggrieved by the said award, the 3 respondent/The United India Insurance Company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

11.Heard both sides and perused the records in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

12.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/3^rd respondent/Insurance Company has argued that there is no dispute regarding the quantum of the award, the only dispute raised is to fix 50% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car, in which the deceased travelled. The specific plea of the 3^rd respondent/Insurance Company is that the accident took place at centre place of the road, which was substantiated by evidence of eye witness P.W.2 and Ex.P.3 - Rough sketch. P.W.2 categorically admitted that

The rough sketch Ex.P