Liability for motor accident apportioned 1/3rd each to car driver (sudden brake), two-wheeler rider (no safe distance), and lorry driver (failure to avoid).

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)

The second respondent (The TATA AIG General Insurance Co Ltd) in M.C.O.P.No.235 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional District Judge, Vellore @ Ranipet, has filed the present Appeal questioning the liability fixed on the ratio of 50% on the appellant herein, who was the insurer for the lorry bearing registration No.TN 73 D 7626 with respect to an accident which had occurred on 28.08.2014 at about 3.50 pm.

2. The accident had occurred on 28.08.2014. The deceased Dinesh Kumar, son of the claimant/first respondent herein. was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler bearing registration No.TN 23 AJ 7195 belonging to the fifth respondent driven by one Kumaresan on Arani road towards Arcot. When their two wheeler reached near Baskaran House, Periyauppupettai, a car bearing registration No.TN 06 H 7715, belonging to the third respondent herein and insured with the second respondent herein, came to a sudden halt on application of break by its driver to avoid hitting a cow and thereupon, the rider of the two wheeler dashed the car and both the rider and the deceased (pillion rider of the two wheeler), having lost control, fell on the road and by then, the Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN 73 D 7626 belonging to the 4th respondent and insured with the second respondent herein, which came in the opposite direction hit against them and thereby the both the deceased (pillion rider) and the rider of the two wheeler and caused grievous injuries to them, as a result, the pillion rider died on the spot. In this connection an FIR was registered against the driver of the car.

3. While examining the issue as to who was responsible for the accident and who should pay the compensation, the Tribunal had observed as follows:-

"10. On perusal of FIR Ex.P1, it finds that, no evidentiary value has to be taken from the FIR, since it was already closed as RCS by the Police after due and proper investigation. No objection was raised by the complainant namely the rider of a two wheeler against the RCS proceedings filed by the police and the closing of FIR. Hence, the negligence has to be fixed by the Tribunal independently based on the evidence adduced in this case. On considering the nature of an accident, it will clearly reveal that, while the Car was proceeding in front of a two wheeler, a Cow was suddenly crossing the road in front of a Car and hence, the driver of a Car has suddenly applied the brake in order to avoid the hit against the Cow and at that time, the rider of a two wheeler ridden the vehicle very rash and negligent manner along with the deceased as pillion rider without keeping the safe distance as per M.V. Rules and hit against the Car with his hand bar of the two wheeler and skidded down on the road.

11. Further, it will clearly reveal that, when the rider of a two wheeler and the deceased were lying on the road, the driver of a Lorry drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit against them and caused serious injuries to them. If both the ,rider of a two wheeler and the driver of a Lorry have carefully driven the vehicles, the accident would have been averted. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of a car since he applied the sudden brake due to the sudden crossing of a Cow on the road in front of a car on humanitarian ground. Since, the rider of a two wheeler rode the vehicle "in a rash and negligent manner without keeping a safe distance in front of his vehicle, his hand bar has caused a hit against the Car. Hence, considering all the aspects and e