Eyewitness testimony upheld attributing full negligence to insured vehicle driver; Tribunal's compensation quantum and pay-recover order affirmed.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.

The appellant insurance company filed this appeal challenging the quantum of the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.357 of 2018, dated 11.12.2024 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional Subordinate Judge), Kumbakonam.

2.Fact of the case:

The deceased, Rajesh, on 27.07.2013 at about 9.00 a.m., was travelling on his two-wheeler along the Thiruvarur–Kumbakonam Main Road, proceeding on the left side of the road in a slow and cautious manner, adhering to traffic rules and regulations. At that time, the Tata Ace vehicle bearing Registration No. TN25T1510, insured with the appellant–Insurance Company, came from the opposite direction. It is the case of the claimants that the driver of the said vehicle, after overtaking another vehicle, suddenly stopped without giving any signal, resulting in a collision with the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head, chest, and other parts of the body. He was initially taken to a private hospital at Kumbakonam and thereafter shifted to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital for further treatment. Despite treatment from 27.07.2013 to 05.08.2013, he succumbed to the injuries on 05.08.2013.

2.1.The dependents of the deceased filed M.C.O.P. No. 357 of 2018 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Kumbakonam, claiming compensation. In connection with the accident, a criminal case in Crime No. 225 of 2013 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle, and a final report was filed after investigation.

2.2.To substantiate their claim, the claimants examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. P1 to P9. On the side of the respondents, R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined, and Ex. R1 was marked. Additionally, Exs. X1 and X2 (including MRI report and vehicle inspection reports) were marked through the Court.

3.Finding of the Tribunal The learned Tribunal Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant-insured vehicle and awarded a total compensation of Rs.18,06,052/-

by judgment dated 11.12.2024, on the following heads:

3.1.Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant–Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal, primarily challenging the finding on negligence.

The quantum of compensation has not been seriously disputed.

4.Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:

The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal erred in fixing negligence on the driver of the insured vehicle without properly appreciating the evidence of R.Ws. 1 and 2. It is further submitted that the testimony of the alleged independent witness is not reliable and the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of Insurance company in proper perspective.

5.Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimants:

Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the Tribunal, based on the cogent and reliable testimony of P.W.2, an independent eyewitness, has rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the insured vehicle. It is further contended that no contra evidence has been adduced to discredit the testimony of the said witness, and the evidence of Insurance company does not probabilise any negligence on the part of the deceased.

6.This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company/third responde