COMMON JUDGMENT

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMAR KURUP, J.

The challenge in all these appeals is to the award of the learned III Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharapuram at Tiruppur District in M.C.O.P. Nos.486, 488, 490, 492 & 494 of 2010 awarding compensation to the claimants who are either injured or dependants of victims of accident arising out of the same accident.

2.Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:

2.1.On 12.04.2010 at about 2.45 p.m., members of a joint family was travelling in a car. The car was driven by one Manoharan. When the car was proceeding towards West in the Karur to Coimbatore main road, a lorry belongs to second respondent in the claim petitions and driven by the first respondent in the claim petitions and insured by the appellant dashed against the car. The driver of the car by name Manoharan and three persons by name Tmt.Buvaneswari, Bharathi and Kalaivani died on the spot. Another passenger by name Dhivya also died in hospital. All the claim petitions are allowed by awarding compensation, fixing the liability jointly and severally against Driver, Owner and the insurer of lorry after holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry. All the appeals are filed by the third respondent/insurer of the lorry mainly against the liability on the ground that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of car by name Manoharan.

3.The learned Counsel for the Appellant/Insurer of the Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-45-X-8595, submitted the following points: The FIR under Ex.P-1 was lodged by the Village Administrative Officer of Veeranapalayam, Karur District. He was not an eye witness. He is a hearsay witness. Only to set the criminal law in motion, he had lodged the FIR. The Investigation Officer had closed the investigation stating that the driver of the car bearing Registration No.TN-43-C-5618 died in the accident. Therefore, the charges abated. The person who had let in evidence as eye witness was not at all an eye witness. The learned Judge of the Tribunal had misdirected himself by arriving at a conclusion that the accident was caused by the driver of the lorry and fixed the entire liability on the insurer of the Lorry/Appellant herein. R.W-1 is the Inspector of Police, Kangeyam Police Station. R.W-2 is the Legal Officer of the Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company/the fourth Respondent herein. Ex.R-1 is the Closure Report/Charge Sheet. Ex.R-2 is the rough sketch prepared by the Investigation Officer.

4.The eye witness one Ramalingam, S/o.Periyasamy, aged about 45 years, a resident of Veeracholapuram Village, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District was examined as P.W-5. As per his affidavit filed as Examination- in-Chief, he had stated that the accident occurred on 12.04.2010 by around 2.45 p.m. He was returning from Karur and was standing in front of the shop which is hardly 100 metres away from the scene of occurrence. As per his affidavit recorded as Examination-in-Chief of P.W-5, the car bearing Registration No.TN-43-C-5618 was moving from East to West on the East- West Karur to Veeranampalayam Road. On the Southern portion of the East-West Road towards West from East, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-45-X-8595 was moving from West towards East with high speed. On seeing the lorry, the driver of the car slowed down the car and moved the car to the Southern extreme of the East-West Road. The driver of the lorry did not reduce the speed and hit against the car thereby the front portion of the car was fully damaged. In the impact, the car was pushed towards Northern side of the East-West Road. The impact was on the right side of the lorry. He was cross-examined on behalf of the Appellant herein/third Respondent and fourth Respondent in the claim petition. The suggestion was that he was not related to the victims of the accident. He had not noticed the damage of the lorry. Therefore, he was not an eye witness.