.vs.
3.The United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Sowcarpet Branch, 52, General Muthiah Mudali Street, First Floor, Sowcarpet, Chennai.
4.Rajendran ....Respondents 1 to 3/Respondents. Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgement and decree made in MACT.O.P.No.1212 of 2000 dated 2.1.2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal((II Additional District Judge),Tirunelveli.
For Appellant :M/s.D.Sivaraman For Respondent-1 :Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For Respondent-3 :Mr.N.Murugesan For Respondents :No appearance 2 and 4 C.M.A(MD)No.2231 of 2003 The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited, Cuddalore ...4th Respondent/Appellant
-Vs-
1.Sankaralingam @ Sankar
2.Minor Balasundaram represented by his father and natural guardian, the first respondent herein. ...Petitioners
3.Sappani
4.The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Sowcarpet Branch, 52, General Muthiah Mudali Street, First Floor, Sowcarpet, Chennai.
5.S.Rajendran ...Respondents 1 to 3/Respondents Prayer:-Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the common judgement and decree made in MACT O.P.No.1211 of 2000 dated 2.1.2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(II Additional District Judge), Tirunelveli.
For Appellant :M/s.D.Sivaraman For Respondents :Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu 1 and 2 For Respondent-4 :Mr.N.Murugesan For Respondents :No appearance 3 and 5 C.M.A(MD)No.1216 of 2004 The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Cuddalore ...4th Respondent/Appellant
-Vs-
1.Sankaralingam @ Sankar
2.Minor Balasundaram represented by his father and natural guardian, the first respondent herein. ...Petitioners
3.Sappani
4.The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Sowcarpet Branch, 52, General Muthiah Mudali Street, First Floor, Sowcarpet, Chennai.
5.S.Rajendran ...Respondents 1 to 3/Respondents Prayer:-Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the common judgement and decree made in MACT O.P.No.1210 of 2000 dated 2.1.2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(II Additional District Judge), Tirunelveli.
For Appellant :M/s.D.Sivaraman For Respondents :Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu 1 and 2 For Respondent-4 :Mr.N.Murugesan For Respondent-3 :No appearance :COMMON JUDGMENT These three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the Insurance Company, which is the insurer of one of the vehicles involved in the accident that occurred on 31.05.2000.
2.The quantum of compensation is not challenged. The challenge is limited to the apportionment of the liability between two Insurance Companies, namely the Appellant and third respondent. The accident is the result of head on collision of two vehicles namely a Tipper Lorry and a Passenger Van. One of the passengers in the van had lodged the First Information Report. The contents of the First Information Report is not sufficient to decide the manner of accident. It only shows that Tipper Lorry which came in the opposite direction dashed against the van and the same was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. Ex.A6-Rough Sketch shows that accident had occurred in the middle of the road and both the vehicles had travelled 15 to 20 ft., after the impact. P.W.1 in his evidence has also admitted that both the vehicles were travelling at good speed. Relevant Relevant portion of his evidence reads as follows:
''Bkyg;ghisaj;jpw;F mLj;J mk;ig Buhl;oy; Bgha;f;bfhz;oUe;jBghJ Btd; Btfkhf BghdJ. vA;fSf;F vjpBu xU yhhp o.vd;.01.9694 vd;w yhhp, vA;fs; Btd; kPJ Bkhjptpl;lJ. mg;BghJ gfy; 1.30 kzpapUf;Fk;. BtDk; yhhpak; Btfkhfg; BghdJ.'' ''ehd; NghyPRf;F jfty; nfhLf;ftpy;iy. Ntd; biutUk; Ntfkhfj;jhd; Xl;bg;Nghdhh;. VjpNu te;j yhhpAk; Ntfkhf jhd; NghdJ. ,uz;Lk; NeUf;F Neh; Nkhjpf;nfhz;lJ. Nkyg;ghisaj;jpypUe;J tisthf nry;Yk; fpoNky; NuhL njw;fhf tisAk; ,lj;jpy; tpgj;J ele;jJ.
3.The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal had erred in fixing the negligence at 50% each, on both the vehicles. The learned counsel would also rely upon the fact that the driver of the lorry had admitted his guilty before the Criminal Court and had paid the fine amount.
4.The conviction and admission of the guilt before the Criminal Court is not a absolute piece of evidence to decide on the question of contributory negligence by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Even from the evidence of P.W.1, it could be seen that both the vehicles travelled at high speed and the accident occurred in the middle of the road. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding that both the vehicles are equally responsible for the accident and fixing the contributory negligence equally on both the vehicles and directing the compensation to be paid equally by both the Insurance Companies. Apart from the admission of guilt before the Criminal Court and payment of fine amount by the Driver of the Tipper Lorry, there is no other material placed before this Court so as to arrive at a different conclusion from that of the Tribunal. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the award of the Tribunal.
5.Accordingly, these three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed, confirming the awards of the Tribunal. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. No costs.
To
1.The II Additional District Judge, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tirunelveli.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..