JUDGMENT

The above Civil Miscellaneous Petition is preferred against the award and decree dated 23.03.2020 passed in M.C.O.P.No.98 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Sessions Court, Ariyalur.

2. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that, on

20.11.2016 at about 10.30 p.m, deceased Ravi was driving a lorry carrying graphite stones bearing Registration No.TN 68 C 3228 in the Karur to Tirchy bypass road from west to east towards Uppidamangalam bride in a moderate speed. At that time, a Taurus lorry bearing Registration No.TN 47 R 7471 was stationed without any indicator and red flag by its driver on the right side, near the central median. Since there was no light, the deceased dashed against the said lorry from the back side and sustained fatal injuries. Then, he was taken to the nearby hospital at Karur, where he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. Hence, the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the 1st respondent driver. Accordingly, the legal heirs of the deceased claim compensation for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- against the respondents.

3. The respondents alleged that the 1st respondent's driver was moving the lorry bearing Registration No.TN 47 R 7471 keeping his left side of the road towards East direction. The heavy vehicles were plying in the opposite direction. At that time, the deceased Ravi came behind the 1st respondent's lorry, suddenly overtook the 1st respondent's lorry when the heavy vehicles were coming like a chain in the opposite direction without following any road rules. The deceased while overtaking the 1st respondent's lorry took a sharp turn after seeing the opposite side lorry and dashed the right side body of the moving 1st respondent's lorry and invited the accident. The accident had happened only because due to the negligence of the deceased Ravi due to his rash and negligent manner of driving. If the deceased had followed the traffic rules, the accident would not have happened.. The 1st respondent's lorry driver did not park the lorry as alleged in the petition and no lorry driver would stop the lorry in the over bridge of the Highways. The petitioner's relative who had retired from police department influenced the police by furnishing false details register the F.I.R for the purpose of claim.

4. Hence, the deceased Ravi, the 3rd respondent's lorry driver sustained injuries and succumbed to death only due to his own negligence. The petitioners can ask compensation only from the 3rd and 4th respondents for the accident during the course of employment under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. Without any iota of evidence, the 1st and 2nd respondents have been implicated in the petition for getting unjust compensation. If at all any compensation is paid to the petitioners, 3rd and 4th respondents are alone liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The petition is liable to be dismissed as against 1st and 2nd respondents. Since the accident had happened due to the 1st petitioner's husband rash and negligent driving, the petitioners cannot file the petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st petitioner/wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. One Elangovan, cleaner of the vehicle driven by the deceased was examined as P.W.2. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 were marked on the side of the petitioner. On the other hand, the driver of the 1st respondent was examined as R.W.1. No document was filed on the side of the respondents.

6. The Tribunal after considering the materials on record held that the accident had taken place due to the negligent act of the driver of the 1st respondent and fixed the liability on the 1st and 2nd respondents and ordered that 1st and 2nd respondents are liable to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is on appeal.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company would contend that the M.A.C.T erred in fixing the enti