CMA(MD)/660/2020 of M/S.NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs SOUNDARAM on 2 November 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

The third respondent before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in the respective M.C.O.Ps proceedings, in MCOP Nos.101, 102 and 103 of 2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karur, have preferred these present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, challenging the common award dated 30.09.2019.

2. Facts of the case:

2.1. The claimants in the respective M.C.O.Ps. were travelling as passengers in a State Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN-33-N-2583. On 18.09.2016, while the bus was proceeding on the Karur–Coimbatore Main Road, the driver of the bus attempted to overtake a vehicle proceeding ahead. In the course of such overtaking, the bus collided with a tipper lorry bearing Registration No. TN-28-AL-9903, insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. In the accident, several passengers sustained injuries and some of them died.

2.2. The injured persons and the legal representatives of the deceased filed separate claim petitions, impleading the Managing Director of Transport Corporation, owner of Lorry and the said vehicle insured with appellant/Insurance Company, as parties respectively.

2.3. The appellant-Insurance Company filed its counter disputing

the manner of the accident and contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Transport Corporation bus. According to the Insurance Company, while attempting to overtake the vehicle proceeding ahead, the bus entered the extreme portion of the road meant for the oncoming traffic and collided with the tipper lorry. It was therefore contended that the driver of the tipper lorry was not negligent and that the Insurance Company was not liable to satisfy the compensation. The quantum of compensation claimed in the respective claim petitions was also disputed.

2.4. The Transport Corporation also filed its counter contending that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the tipper lorry driver. According to the Transport Corporation, there was no negligence on the part of its bus driver and, therefore, the Transport Corporation was not liable. The quantum claimed in the respective petitions was also disputed.

2.5. Before the Tribunal, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked, on the side of the claimants. On the side of the respondents, the conductor of the Transport Corporation bus was examined as R.W.1

3. Findings of the Tribunal:

3.1. Upon appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that both the vehicles had contributed to the occurrence and apportioned the negligence at 80% on the Transport Corporation bus and 20% on the tipper lorry, insured with appellant Insurance Company. The Tribunal accordingly awarded compensation in the respective claim petitions by the common award dated 30.09.2019.

(i) MCOP No.101 of 2019:- Sl. No. Heads Awarded Amount in Rs.

Partially Permanent Disability (55%) 1,65,000/-

Loss of Income 21,000/-

Pain and Suffering 30,000/-

Transportation Charges 10,000/-

Nourishment expenses 25,000/-

Medical expenses 1,15,300/-

Future medical expenses 25,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.3,91,300/-

(ii) MCOP No.102 of 2019:- Sl. No. Heads Awarded Amount in Rs.

Temporary Amenities, Damages to cloth and articles 25,000/-

Loss of Income 16,000/-

Pain and Suffering 10,000/-

Transportation Charges 10,000/-

Nourishment expenses 10,000/-

Sl. No. Heads Awarded Amount in Rs.

Medical expenses 8,490/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.79,490/-

(iii) MCOP No.103 of 2019:- Sl. No. Heads Awarded Amount in Rs.

Loss of Income 4,41,000/-

Loss of Estate 15,000/-

Funeral expenses 15,000/-

Loss of Love and Affection 1,80,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.6,51,000/-

3.2. Aggrieved by the said common award, the Insurance Company have preferred these present appeals, principally challenging the finding fixing 20% negligence on the driver of the tipper lorry. The quantum of compensation was not seriously challenged.

4. Discussion of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company:

4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the finding of 20% negligence on the tipper lorry is contrary to the pleadings and the evidence. According to the learned counsel, the pleadings themselves disclose that the Transport

Corporation bus, while attempting to overtake the vehicle proceeding ahead, dashed against the tipper lorry. Therefore, the entire negligence ought to have been attributed to the bus driver and no negligence could have been fastened upon the tipper lorry driver.

5. Discussion of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Transport Corporation:

5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation submitted that the Tribunal had correctly appreciated the evidence. According to him, the tipper lorry driver, who was proceeding in the opposite direction, had sufficient opportunity to avoid the accident after noticing the bus attempting to overtake the vehicle. He could have reduced the speed or moved towards the left side of the road and thereby avoided the collision. Since the lorry driver failed to avail such opportunity, the Tribunal was justified in fixing 20% negligence on him.

6. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the entire records.

7. The following question arises for consideration:

(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing 20% negligence on the driver of the tipper lorry, in addition to 80% negligence on the driver of the Transport Corporation bus?

8. Discussion on negligence and Findings:

8.1. This Court carefully considered the evidence of the injured witnesses, the First Information Report, the other contemporaneous materials and the sketch available on record.

8.2. It is true that the driver of the Transport Corporation bus was not examined before the Tribunal. However, the conductor of the bus was examined. More importantly, the evidence of the injured witnesses and the other materials on record provide sufficient evidence regarding the manner in which the accident occurred.

8.3. The materials on record establish that the Transport Corporation bus was in the process of overtaking a vehicle proceeding ahead. When a vehicle is attempting to overtake another vehicle, the driver of an oncoming vehicle also has a equal duty to exercise reasonable care and take appropriate steps to avoid a collision if the circumstances so permit.

8.4. The present case is therefore not one in which the negligence of the bus driver alone has to be examined in isolation. The relevant question is whether the driver of the tipper lorry, on noticing the bus entering the portion of the road while overtaking, had an opportunity to avoid the collision.

8.5. The evidence indicates that the lorry driver could have reduced

the speed and, if reasonably possible, moved further towards the left side of the road. The sketch also indicates that sufficient space was available on the left side of the road for avoiding the collision. However, the lorry driver did not take such steps.

8.6. This is therefore a case where the “last opportunity to avoid the collision” was available, to some extent, to the driver of the tipper lorry as well. The fact that the bus was overtaking the vehicle proceeding ahead does not, by itself, absolve the driver of the oncoming lorry from the duty to take reasonable steps to avoid the collision when the danger became apparent. At the same time, the principal negligence remains attributable to the Transport Corporation bus, since it was the bus which entered the lane of the oncoming lorry while attempting to overtake another vehicle.

8.7. Having regard to the totality of the evidence, including the testimony of the injured witnesses, the documentary evidence and the sketch, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal Judge has appropriately apportioned the negligence at 80% on the Transport Corporation bus and 20% on the tipper lorry insured with appellant Insurance Company. The contention of the appellant-Insurance Company that no negligence whatsoever can be attributed to the tipper lorry driver cannot therefore be accepted. The absence of examination of the lorry driver, by itself, does

not warrant interference with the finding of the Tribunal when the other evidence on record supports the finding of contributory negligence.

8.8. Accordingly, this Court finds no error in the appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal or in the apportionment of negligence in the ratio of “80:20”.

8.9. Since the quantum of compensation has not been seriously challenged before this Court, the quantum fixed in the common award dated 30.09.2019 is liable to be confirmed.

9. Result:

9.1. In the result, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed.

9.2. The common award dated 30.09.2019 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karur, in the respective M.C.O.P. Nos.101,102 and 103 of 2019 are hereby confirmed.

9.3. If both the appellant-Insurance Company and Transport Corporation already deposited the award amount in view of the orders passed by the trial court, the respective claimants and proforma respondents are entitled to withdraw the amount in accordance with the apportionment made by the Tribunal.

9.4. If any amount remains to be deposited, both the appellant- Insurance Company and Transport Corporation shall deposit the same,

after giving credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 02.11.2026 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No AKM To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge), Karur.

2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J. AKM CMA(MD) No. 660 of 2020 AND CMA(MD) No. 661 of 2020, CMA(MD) No. 662 of 2020, CMP(MD) No. 6661 of 2020, CMP(MD) No. 6658 of 2020, CMP(MD) No. 6665 of 2020 Dated: 02.11.2026