JUDGMENT:

1. The appellants, who are petitioners in the lower Court were denied compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad vide judgment in O.P.No.198 of 2005, dated 17.06.2008 on the ground that the deceased was negligent and he was responsible for the accident.

2. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the Original Petition before the Tribunal.

Briefly, the case of the claimants is that three vehicles were involved in the accident. The deceased along with P.W.1 were traveling in Indica Car. The said vehicle was sandwiched in between Milk Tanker (TATA) bearing No.MH-13B-3150 and Volvo Truck No.GJI-UU-9430. The 1st respondent is the owner of the Milk Tanker and 2nd respondent is the insurer of the said tanker. The 3rd respondent is the owner of the Volvo Truck and 4th respondent is the insurer of the Volvo truck. The 5th respondent is the owner of the Indica car bearing No. MH 24F 3049 and 6th respondent is the insurer of the said Indica Car.

3. It is the case of the claimant/P.W.1 that her husband was driving the Indica car when the accident had taken place while overtaking Milk tanker. The driver of the Milk Tanker allowed the deceased to over take his vehicle. While overtaking the vehicle, the Volvo truck which was coming in the opposite direction, was driven in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the Indica Car. At the same time, Milk Tanker was also responsible for the accident. Claim petition was filed against all the three vehicle owners and the insurers under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for total sum of Rs.22,50,000/-. The claim was made on the ground that all the drivers of three vehicles were responsible for the accident and accordingly, compensation has to be paid by all the three vehicle insurers.

4. Learned Tribunal Judge while disposing the claim found that the compensation that is liable to be paid is Rs.12,27,650/-. However, since the deceased, who was driving the Tata Indica car overtook the heavy vehicle, which is Tata Tanker (Milk tanker) and he failed to observe Volvo truck in the opposite direction while overtaking the Milk Tanker, it resulted in the accident. Accordingly, negligence cannot be attributed to either the Milk Tanker driver or the Driver of the Volvo truck, but the deceased himself who was driving the Indica Car. Further, the learned Tribunal Judge placed reliance on the charge sheet and investigation being closed mainly on the ground that the deceased was responsible for the accident.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that as found by the Tribunal, the entire fault cannot be attributed to the deceased. Inferences were drawn only on the basis of the final report filed by the police, ignoring the statement of P.W.1, who was sitting in the car when accident took place. Since the accident was on account of the negligence of the drivers of the Milk Tanker and Volvo truck, who failed to drive cautiously causing accident, compensation as claimed should be paid by all the three vehicle insurers.

6. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Limited and others (2015) 9 Supreme Court Cases 273), wherein the Hon’ble Three Judge Bench of the Hon’le Supreme Court was dealing with joint tortfeasors liability. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even if one of the Joint tortfeasors involved in the accident was impleaded, then he would be liable to pay entire compensation irrespective of the other joint tortfesors being made party or not.

7. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh and others v. Attar Singh and others (2015) 15 Supreme Court Cases 364). In National Insurance Company Limited v. Balakrishnan and another (2013)(1)SCC (CRI) 677),wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a comprehensive package policy would cover the liability of the insur