IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CMA No. 1678 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.12356 of 2020 Branch Manager National Insurance Co Ltd, Branch Office, Matha Complex, Cna Road, Vaniyambadi, Vellore District.635 751.

..Appellant(s)

Vs

1. Nivetha

2. Minor Sakthi 3. Minor Nithis Minors are represented by their next friend/mother/1st respondent Nivetha)

4. Muthulakshmi

5. Sivagami

6. M.Thirunavakkarasu

7. The Managing Director State Express Transport Corporation, No.2.Pallavan Salai, Chennai.

..Respondent(s)

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, against the award dated 21-02-2020 made in MCOP No.353/2016 on the file of the MACT (Special District Judge), Dharmapuri.

For Appellant(s): Mr.D.Bhaskaran For Appellant For Respondent(s): Mr.L.Munisamy for R1 to R4 Mr.S.S.Santhosa Kumar for R7

JUDGMENT

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

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging the liability fixed on the Insurance Company/ the second respondent in the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.353 of 2016 dated 21.02.2020, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge), Dharmapuri.

2. The appellant/ Insurance Company is the insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.TN 30 U 2917. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased, Murali was the driver-cum-conductor in the third respondent/Transport Corporation. On 21.03.2016, while he was in duty, the bus was driven by a regular driver namely Venkatachalam, from Chennai to Krishnagiri. When the bus reached near Sundampatti junction, at about 4.15 a.m., on 22.03.2016, the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN 30 U 2917 which was proceeding in front of the bus, suddenly slowed down and turned without any signal, as a result of which, the driver of the bus lost its control and dashed behind the lorry. Due to accident, the deceased/Murali, who was sleeping behind the driver’s seat suffered grievous injuries and subsequently, succumbed. The dependents of the deceased, Murali, has come forward with the Claim Petition seeking compensation for a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- by invoking Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the driver and insurer of the lorry as well as the Transport Corporation.

3. The sixth respondent, owner of the lorry remained exparte before the Tribunal.

4. The appellant/ Insurance Company contested the claim and filed the counter.

5. It is the case of the Insurance Company that the driver of the bus has driven the vehicle negligently and dashed against the ongoing lorry. This incident happened only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and hence, the insurer of the lorry is not liable to pay compensation to the deceased. It is further stated that the criminal proceedings were initiated against the driver of the bus. Hence, the compensation claimed is also not proper. 6. The Transport Corporation filed a separate counter and contended that since the lorry was driven in a negligent manner and suddenly slowed down in the middle of the road which resulted in causing the accident and inspite of the best efforts made by the driver of the bus, the accident was unavoidable and hence, the owner and insurer of the lorry are only liable to pay the compensation.

7. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and one Srinivasan, eye-witness was examined as P.W.2 and one Mohamed Ali, employer of the Transport Corporation was examined as P.W.3 and marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15. On the side of the respondents, one Sathishkumar, who is working in the State Transport Corporation was examined as R.W.1 and one Venkatachalam, the driver of the bus at the time of accident, was examined as R.W.2 and marked 2 documents as Exs.R1 and R2.

8. After considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the driver of the lorry is responsible to th