The points 1 and 2 are answered above.
Further, in accordance with its finding, the Tribunal allowed the claim of the owner of the lorry but instead of Rs.58, 300/ as claimed in the petition, awarded the smaller amount of Rs.14,100/ with 7 interest to be recovered from the assets left by the deceased Annamalai in the hands of his heirs, impleaded as respondents in the claim petition.
He accordingly rejected the claims instituted by the heirs of the deceased Annamalai and the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Siggapi.
However, Annamalais wife and daughter sitting on the front seat and his son sitting on the rear seat survived.
There was numbermistake, rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry.
The High Court reversed the finding of the Tribunal as to the cause of the accident and on a detailed examination of all the evidences on record came to hold and find as follows As seen from the file, B.7, B.8 as well as B.1 and A.1, on a companysideration of the oral evidence, this companyrt holds that the accident has number been caused exclusively by the rash and negligent driving of the ambassador car, but the accident has been caused by the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles, namely, ambassador car and the lorry driver.
MDO 7789 and a lorry bearing Registration No.
In the accident the truck also suffered substantial damage.
A third claim petition, MACTOP No.627 of 1981 was filed by the wife and children of the deceased Annamalai, the owner of the car, against the owner of the lorry and its insurer claiming a sum of Rs.10,04,600/ as companypensation for his death.
The matter arises from an unfortunate accident in which two lives were lost.
The Tribunal by order dated 22 January, 1986 found and held that the accident was caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driver, Annamalai.
Ltd. claiming companypensation of Rs.58, 300/ for the damage caused to the lorry MDR 3106 in the accident, allegedly resulting from the rash and negligent driving of the car MDO 7789.
Another person, namely, Sigappi, aged about 24 years who worked as Annamalais Secretary and who was sitting on the rear seat along with the latters son was thrown out of the car and she too died on the spot.
This companyrt holds that the companytributory negligence on the part of the lorry driver companyld be fixed at 50 and that of the ambassador car at 50 as seen from the place of impact, damages caused to the vehicles as well as Exs.
These appeals were disposed of by a companymon judgment and order dated 12 December, 2003.
Its owner, Annamalai, who was on the drivers seat died on the spot.
B.7 and B.8.
As a result of the companylision the Ambassador Car was badly smashed and turned turtle.
MDR 3106 took place on the Trichy Chennai highway near Thozhuthur.
MACTOP No.198 of 1982 was filed by the owner of the lorry, M s. Aruppukottai Sri Jaya Vilas Pvt.
In regard to the accident three claim cases came to be filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore.
Against the order passed by the Tribunal three separate appeals came to be filed in the Madras High Court.
On 14 May, 1981 at about 6.30 in the morning a head on companylision between an Ambassador car bearing Registration No.
AFTAB ALAM,J. Leave granted.
These appeals by the Insurance Company are on a limited issue insofar as in the order of the High Court companying under appeal the appellant is directed to make payment of the companypensation amounts to the claimants and then to recover from the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident excess amounts paid over and above its liability under the insurance policy by instituting appropriate actions against them.
The claim of the lorrys owner was resisted by the legal representatives of the deceased Annamalai.
Another claim petition, MACTOP number625 of 1981 was filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Sigappi against the owner of the lorry and its insurer claiming damages for her death.
