In a head-on collision between two vehicles, in absence of evidence to exonerate either driver, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies, leading to a presumption of composite negligence, and insurers are jointly and severally liable equally.

JUDGMENT :

Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.

[1] Heard Mr. A.J. Saikia, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Deka, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant as well as Mr. K.K. Bhatta, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/New India Assurance Company Limited.

[2] This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. impugning the judgment and award dated 29.05.2018, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup(Metro), Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 306/2012, whereby the respondent No.1/claimant was awarded a compensation amount of Rs. 29,82,959/-.

[3] The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment directed the respondent No. 3 as well as the present appellant to share the liability of paying compensation to the extent of 50% each.

[4] The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that on 01.02.2012, at about 11.15 P.M., the husband of the respondent No. 1, namely, Jayanta Roy Kar was travelling by Hyundai i-10 Car, bearing Registration No. AS-23-G-0600 from Ledu Sahitya Sabha towards his residence, situated at Tinsukia. On his way, when he reached Kharjan Pol at National Highway No. 38, under the Digboi Police Station, an oil Tanker bearing Registration No. AS-23-B-9981, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the Hyundai Car, in which the husband of the present respondent No. 1 was travelling, from the front side, as a result of which the husband of the present respondent No. 1 sustained grievous injuries on his person. Thereafter, the injured, Jayanta Roy Kar represented by the present respondent No. 1, approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup(Metro), by filing an application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in the aforementioned motor vehicular accident. The said case was registered as MAC Case No. 306/2012.

[5] The present appellant as well as respondent No. 3 contested the claim of the claimant/respondent No. 1 by filing written statements; wherein they denied their liability, to indemnify the owner of the vehicles involved in the accident.

[6] Upon pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed the following issues: -

i. “Whether the claimant Jayanta Roy Kar, sustained injuries in the alleged road accident dated 01-02-2012 involving the vehicle bearing registration No.AS-23-G-0600 (Hyundai i-10) and AS-23-B-9981 (Tanker) and whether the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Tanker?

ii. Whether the claimant is entitled to receive any compensation and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount will be payable?

[7] During the inquiry, the present respondent No. 1 (claimant) had adduced evidence of four witnesses and exhibited certain documents. Both the insurance company, i.e., the present appellant, as well as respondent No.3, did not adduce any evidence during the inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Ultimately, by the judgment and award, which has been impugned in this appeal, both the issues were decided in favour of the claimant and the Tribunal came to the finding that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident, namely, the Tanker bearing Registration No. AS-23-B-9981, as well as Hyundai i-10 Car, bearing Registration No.AS-23-G-0600 and directed both the insurance companies to share the liability to pay the compensation amount to the claimant to the extent of 50% each. The aforesaid judgment and award has been impugned by the present appellant, mainly on the ground that though there was no evidence on record indicating any negligence on the part of the driver of the i-10 vehicle, however, the present appellant was also directed to pay 50% of the awarded amount to the claimant.

[8] Mr. A.