Negligence in motor accidents leads to liability of insurers unless proven otherwise.

1. The Insurance Company viz., United India Insurance Company has come up with the present civil miscellaneous appeal having aggrieved over an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore in M.C.O.P.No.437 of 2007 dated 30.11.2011.

2. The claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.437 of 2007 was filed by the wife, daughter and son of the deceased Dr. Dhamodharan, who are ranked as respondents 1 to 3 in the present appeal, having lost him in a road accident, as against the owner of the Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No.TN 38 A 4432 and the insurer viz., the appellant - insurance Company, seeking a compensation of Rs.75,00,000/-.

3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that the deceased Dr.Damodharan, who was working as Senior Scientist in the Sugarcane Breeding Institute viz., fourth respondent herein, was returning from Karnataka to Coimbatore on 24.1.2006 after completing his official work, by the above said Tempo Traveller, driven by its Driver viz., Balachandran and while so, at about 2.00 pm, when the vehicle was plying at Aymangala at Chitradurga District, the driver of the Tempo Traveller, having driven it in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against a Lorry bearing registration No.KA 01 D 1145 belonging to the 7th respondent herein and driven by its driver viz., 6th respondent herein and caused the accident and the resultant death of the said Damodharan. The said lorry was insured with the 8th respondent herein. According to the claimants, the deceased would earn a sum of Rs.70,000 / = per month had he been alive and the accident was due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the Tempo Traveller and hence, the claim petition was filed as against the owner and Insurer of the said vehicle.

4. The owner of the Tempo Traveller viz., the fourth respondent herein filed counter before the Tribunal contending that the claimants were paid sufficient compensation by them as employer and they have been paid family pension and the claim made is an exorbitant one.

5. The appellant herein contested the claim petition contending that the driver of the Tempo Traveller was not holding a valid license at the time of the accident and the policy conditions had been violated. It was further contended by them that the theory of contributory negligence has to be applied to the present case as it could be proved by rough sketch that the other vehicle viz., lorry was also responsible for the accident. Further contention of the insurer was that the claimants have not proved the income and avocation of the deceased.

6. On the side of the claimants, the first claimant viz., wife of the deceased was examined as PW1 and the eyewitness to the accident was examined as PW2 and 13 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P13. On the side of respondents, five witnesses were examined as RW1 to RW5 and 11 documents were marked as Ex.R1 to R11.

7. On analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence driving on the part of the driver of the Tempo Traveller belonging to the fourth respondent herein while holding the appellant vicariously liable to pay the compensation and arrived at a total compensation of Rs.41,57,760/- and after deducting a sum of Rs.5,00,000 / = already paid by the owner of the Tempo Traveller, fixed the compensation as Rs.36,57,760/-. Aggrieved against the award passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal after app