AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sengottuvelan, J.—This appeal is filed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Arcot at Vellore in M.A.C T.O.P.
19 of 1978. The facts of the case can be stated thus: Narasimhan, the first respondent herein, was a passenger in the bus MDJ 5353 belonging to
the first appellant herein, on 16th September, 1975. The bus TRN 170 belonging to the second respondent herein, dashed against the bus MDJ
5353 at the rear side on 16th September, 1975 as a result of which, the first respondent had sustained injuries. The first respondent filed MACT
OP No. 19 of 1975 claiming compensation against the appellants and second respondent herein. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on
record, came to the following conclusions: (1) that the accident on 16th September, 1975 had occurred on account of the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the bus TRN 170 belonging to the second respondent herein; (2) that the first respondent herein is entitled to compensation
to the tune of Rs. 15,000 on account of the injuries sustained by him; (3) that out of the total compensation of Rs. 15,000 the liability of the second
respondent is fixed at Rs. 10,000 and of the appellants herein at Rs. 5,000. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the second respondent and the
appellants herein to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 5,000 respectively to the first respondent as and towards the compensation. As against the
said order of apportionment in the compensation awarded, the present appeal has been filed.
The only contention raised by Mr. S. Sampath Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellants is that in view of the finding that the accident had
occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, belonging to the second respondent herein, the Tribunal ought to
have directed the entire compensation payable to the first respondent should be paid by the second respondent only. He further contended that, if
the compensation amount is not recovered from the second respondent, then only the appellants can be made liable to the extent of the liability as
per the provisions of the Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act. This contention of Mr. S. Sampath Kumar in my view, is well founded for the
following reasons:
The finding that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, belonging to the second respondent
herein, had become final, and as such, the total liability for the accident falls upon the second respondent herein. The first respondent had also a
cause of action, against the second respondent herein, since the injury sustained by him is the direct result of the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the bus, belonging to the second respondent herein. Though the first appellant herein is liable to the passengers, as per Section 95 of the
Act, the damages incurred by the first appellant can be recovered from the second respondent herein, as one resulting from the accident, that had
taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, belonging to the second respondent herein. Considering the liabilities
of the appellants and the second respondent herein, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the second respondent herein is
responsible for all the claims that arise from the accident including the claim of the passenger, the first respondent herein which is the subject-matter
of MACT OP 19 of 1975. No doubt, the first respondent has also a cause of action against the first appellant u/s 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
and the loss incurred by payment of such damages by the appellants is recoverable from the second respondent herein.
The fact that the second respondent is liable for the entire damages that arose from the accident cannot be denied. Further the liability includes
the compensation payable to the first respondent also. When it is so, the second respondent herein ought to have been made liable for the entire
compensation payable to the first respondent in MACT OP 19 of 1975. Therefore, we have to consider whether the order of the Tribunal
apportioning the compensation payable between the second respondent on the one hand and the appellants on the other as Rs. 10,000 and Rs,
5,000 respectively is correct. In this connection, we have to remember that the liability to pay the entire compensation is upon the second
respondent, Even though there is a statutory liability, by which the passenger is entitled to get compensation from the appellants, any compensation
that is paid by the appellants is again recoverable from the second respondent, since the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the bus, belonging to the second respondent. The wholesome principle of law is that multiplicity of legal proceedings will
have to be avoided wherever possible and this fact has to be borne in mind before arriving at any conclusion in this case. Considering the entire
circumstances, the order of the Tribunal ought to have been one directing the entire compensation payable to the first respondent by the second
respondent. If by any chance the said compensation is not recoverable from the second respondent, the appellants ought to have been made liable
for the statutory liability of Rs. 5,000 to the first respondent. The order of the Tribunal limiting the liability of the second respondent at Rs. 10,000
is not correct since the entire liability of the accident will have to be borne by the second respondent.
Hence the appeal is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is modified as follows: The compensation of Rs. 15,000 awarded to the first
respondent is payable by the second respondent herein. If the amount is not recoverable from the second respondent, then the statutory
compensation of Rs. 5,000 payable to the first respondent herein is directed to be paid by the appellants herein. There will be no order as to costs.