COMMON JUDGMENT

All these appeals arise out of a same accident and hence, the same are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2021 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puducherry in M.C.O.P.Nos.575, 1004 & 1002 of 2018 respectively.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as follows: On 13.05.2018, at about 2.45 a.m., while one Manikandan was riding a Suzuki motorcycle bearing Registration No.PY 05 W 3960 along with two pillion riders viz., Ramjan Ali & Azaruddin Khan on Pondy – Villupuram Main Road, near Appasamy Company, Vadamangalam, Puducherry from west to east direction, a TATA Multi Axle Goods vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 20 BJ 6939 driven by its driver coming on the same road from east to west direction, hit the said motorcycle, as a result of which, the said Manikandan and two pillion riders were thrown away from the motorcycle and fell down on the road. In the accident, the said Manikandan and the two pillion riders who travelled along with him had sustained severe injuries. One of the pillion riders viz., Azaruddin Khan died on the spot. Immediately after the accident, the said Manikandan and another pillion rider viz., Ramzan Ali were taken to JIPMER Hospital, Puducherry for treatment. However, the another pillion rider viz., Ramzan Ali died on the way to Hospital. Thereafter, on the very same day of accident, the said Manikandan died at 4.52 a.m. Hence, the claimants filed claim petitions claiming compensation.

4. The appellant/Insurance Company had filed its separate counter statement denying all the averments made by the claimants in the aforesaid claim petitions. It is stated that on the date of accident, the said Manikandan was riding the motorcycle along with two pillion riders viz., Ramjan Ali & Azaruddin Khan in a rash and negligent manner; and all of them were not wearing helmet and their act of rash and negligent triple riding in a two wheeler had invited the accident and hence, the claim petitions may be dismissed.

5. List of Witnesses examined and Exhibits marked before the Tribunal:

(i) In M.C.O.P.No.575 of 2018, on the side of the claimants, 1st appellant examined himself as P.W.1 & two other witnesses as P.W.2 & P.W.3 and marked 18 documents as Exs.P1 to P18. On the side of the respondents, two witnesses were examined as R.W.1 & R.W.2 and one document was marked as Ex.X1.

(ii) In M.C.O.P.No.1004 of 2018, on the side of the claimants, 1st appellant examined herself as P.W.1 & one other witness as P.W.2 and marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10. On the side of the respondents, two witnesses were examined as R.W.1 & R.W.2 and one document was marked as Ex.X1.

(iii) In M.C.O.P.No.1002 of 2018, on the side of the claimants, 1st appellant examined himself as P.W.1 & one other witness as P.W.2 and marked 14 documents as Exs.P1 to P14. On the side of the respondents, one witness was examined as R.W.1, but, no document was marked as exhibit.

6. Findings of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.Nos.575, 1004 & 1002 of

2018:

(i) In M.C.O.P.No.575 of 2018, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence produced before it, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of TATA Multi Axle Goods vehicle and contributory negligence of the deceased Manikandan who consumed alcohol and rode the motorcycle without wearing the helmet and hence, it fixed 75% contributory negligence on the driver of TATA Multi Axle Goods vehicle and 25% contributory negligence on the deceased Manikandan. Further, the Tribunal held that owner of the offending vehicle and insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants, however, being the insurer of the offending vehicle, appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pa