J U D G M E N T

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 27.11.2019 in MCOP.No.04 of 2017 on the file of Sessions Judge (Full Additional Charge)/Mahila Court, Pudukkottai and allow this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2.The case of the claimants is that on 11.09.2016, the deceased Duraisamy went to Town in his two wheeler Super Splendor bearing Registration No.TN-55-AF-3673. While he went from west to east in Trichy to Pudukkottai road near Omsakthi stone workshop, a Tavera Car belong to the 7th respondent bearing registration No.TN-63-AE-1188 came in a opposite direction in a high speed without abiding traffic rules, dashed against the two wheeler rode by the said Duraisamy, in which, he fallen from the two wheeler and sustained injuries in his head and body and was taken to hospital for treatment. After undergoing a surgery, he died on 12.09.2016. Hence, the legal heir of the deceased filed a petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/-

3.The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and arguments of the counsel for the appellant and claimants and also on appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the 8th respondent herein and the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company at the time of accident. Therefore, the 7th respondent who is the owner of the offending vehicle and the appellant/Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.16,72,500/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum to the claimants. The appellant/Insurance Company has to indemnify the liability of the 7th respondent and has to pay the entire compensation amount to the claimants, against which, the present appeal has been filed.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

5.Perusal of order shows that the Tribunal has elaborately discussed the case at paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the Judgment in MCOP.No.4 of 2017 and the same reads as follows:

“10.Now, in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case, Purushotam Udeshi vs. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co., reported in 1977 ACJ 343 (SC), referred in the judgment relied on by the petitioners in the Malathi Case it is observed as follows:

“The normal rule is that it is for the plaintiff to prove negligence but as in some cases considerable hardship is caused to the plaintiff as the true cause of the accident is not known to him but is solely within the knowledge of the defendant who caused it, the plaintiff can prove the accident but cannot prove how it happened to establish negligence on the part of the defendant. This hardship is sought to be avoided by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur. The general purport of the words res ipsa loquitur is that the accident speaks for itself or tells its own story. There are cases in which the accident speaks for itself so that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the accident and nothing more. It will then be for the negligence. Where the maxim is applied the burden is on the defendant to show either that in fact he was not negligent or that the accident might more probably have happened in a manner which did not cannot negligence on his part. For the application of the principle it must be shown that the car was under the management of the defendant and that the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who had the management used proper care”.

According to the maxim referred in the judgment, res ipsa loquitur, the accident itself speaks for itself or tells his own story. Hence is the case in hand, at the time of accident, according to the case of the contesting 3rd respondent, based on Ex.P1, deceased who came behind the car driven by the 2nd respondent slowly and behind a town bus which was stopped at that time, dashed against th