JUDGMENT

The matter is heard through "Video Conferencing".

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2011 in M.C.O.P.No. 2053 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, The Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri.

2.The appellant is the 2nd respondent before the tribunal . The

1st respondent has filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident that took place on 18.05.2001.

3. It is the case of the 1st respondent/claimant that on

18.05.2001 the petitioner was travelling in the 3rd respondent SETC Bus bus bearing Reg.No. TN 01-N-6137 from Krishnagiri to Chennai. When the said bus was proceeding near Ayanoor Village at about 1.30 a.m, the lorry bearing Reg.No. PY01-Q-6788 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bus and caused the accident. Due to the impact, the claimant and some others were seriously injured and they were admitted as inpatient. The claimant has claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident.

4. The tribunal on analysing the oral and documentary evidence has concluded that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and not by the driver of the transport corporation. The tribunal directed the owner of the vehicle/2nd respondent herein and the insurance company/appellant herein to pay the compensation of Rs.66,000/- jointly and severally. Challenging the negligence and liability, the insurance company has preferred the present appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company has submitted that this Court while considering the appeal in CMA.No. 2585 of 2003 preferred by the insurance company challenging the award passed by the tribunal arising out of the same accident filed by the one of the injured person, has elobrately considered the facts and fixed the negligence both on the transport corporation and insurance company in 50% -50% ratio citing another judgment of this Court. The relevant portion is extracted below;

“7.The Tribunal while awarding the compensation, had thought it fit to direct both the Transport Corporation as well as Insurance Company to equally pay the compensation to the claimants.

8.As against the same award, the Transport Corporation as well as the Oriental Insurance Company had filed CMA Nos.1308 of 2005 & 1147 of 2017, questioning their respective liabilities and quantum. It is pertinent to mention here that this Court while passing final orders, has held as follows:

“13.The grounds raised by the appellants questioning their respective liabilities is answered as follows:-

i)This is the case of Composite Negligence where the death of a passenger of a bus owned by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation was caused due to the negligence of the drivers of the bus as well as the lorry which was insured with Oriental Insurance Company. The Tribunal, while determining the negligence had relied upon the exhibits A1, A14 & A15 and by taking into account the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, had come to the conclusion that both the drivers of the bus, as well as the lorry, were equally negligent and had caused the accident.

ii)While awarding the compensation, the Tribunal thought it fit to direct both the Transport Corporation as well as the Oriental Insurance Company to equally pay the compensation to the claimants.

iii)It is well settled law in case of Composite Negligence that liability is joint and several and that the Tribunal shall pass a composite decree against the owners of both the vehicles. When this legal issue came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khenyei V. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & others reported in 2015 (1) TNMAC 801 (SC), the Court after taking into account, various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Full Bench