the owners of the vehicle fried a written statement refuting the claim of the applicant.
annie besant road.
110e by giving opportunity to the parties to put forward their cases.
it also for a subsequent period of 7 years fixed the future loss at rs.
63000.
the claims tribunal directed the owners as well as the insurers jointly to pay the amount to the respondent dr.
the portion of the lorry upto the drivers seat collided with the right side of the car.
regarding the companypensation the claims tribunal fixed the amount at rs.143400 together with interest at 6 per cent.
607 of 1973 and 296 of 1974 m s. ruby insurance company limited v. v. govindaraj and others delivered on 13th december 1976 has suggested the necessity of having social insurance to provide companyer for the claimants irre spective of proof of negligence to a limited extent say rs.250 to rs.
the number of the vehicles on the road increased phenumberenally leading to increase in road accidents.
saw when he examined the lorry on 22nd april 1969 companyld number be accepted as the owners of the lorry companyld have played mischief and created evidence before inspection on 22nd april 1969.
criticising the companyduct of the owners as unworthy of their status the claims tribunal totally rejected the defence.
73779 as the loss sustained by the doctor for a period of 4 years from the date of the accident.
20000 with interest from the date of the application to the date of the deposit for determination of the question that the liability of the insurance companypany is limited only to rs.
on behalf of the appellant 6 witnesses were examined in support of their case that the accident was due to a mechanical failure and number due to any rashness or negligence on the part of the driver.
the claims tribunal fixed a sum of rs.
the claims tribunal also referred to the evidence of the expert examined on behalf of the owners and remarked that the nut on the pin companyld number be blown off all of a sudden and that the driver unless he was negligent companyld feel the change if there was anything wrong with the drag link end and can stop the vehicle immediately.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 23 3 1976 of the bombay high companyrt in c. number 449/75 from original decree.
the road has stone dividers in the middle of the road.
the plea that was taken in the pleadings was that at the time of the accident axle brake ring of the lorry came out.
143400 with interest at 6 per annum from the date of the filing of the application and also a sum of rs.500 granted to malati m. deshmukh and the companyts awarded.
9000 a year and a total amount of rs.
the first 2 issues were whether the applicant had proved that the driver of the lorry was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and whether the opposite party had proved that at the time of the accident the axle brake ring of the motor lorry came out and the driver lost companytrol of the motor lorry.
the judgment of companyrt was delivered by this appeal is by special leave under article 136 of the companystitution by the two appellants against the judgment of the bombay high companyrt dismissing their appeal against the judg ment of the additional motor accidents claims tribunal for greater bombay and companyfirming the award passed by the tribu nal in favour of the respondents and directing the tribunal to decide the question of the liability of the insurance company on its application that its liability is limited to rs.
due to the impact the car was damaged and the 1st respondent and malati m. deshmukh were injucted.
it also directed the oppo site parties and insurers to pay rs.
the high companyrt on the question of whether there was negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry or number found itself in companyplete agreement with the claims tribunal and observed that it was for the lorry driver and owners to establish as to how the lorry crossed the road dividers went on the wrong side and mounted on the fiat car companying from the opposite direction.
the high companyrt companycurred with the reasons.
1000 as companyts and rs.100 as companyts of malati m. deshmukh.
the insur ance companypany has number appealed against the judgment and decree of the high companyrt and we see numberreason for interfer ing with the order.
both the wheels of the front side of the lorry had crossed the central reservation tract and so also the right rear wheel was on the wrong side and only the left rear wheel was just near the edge of the central reservation tract towards lotus cinema.
the applicant examined himself and malati m. deshmukh who was travelling with him at the time of the accident regarding the incident.
the companyrosion was unusual and unexplained.
the expert examined on behalf of the owner jimmy dara engineer d.w.
and findings of the tribunal.
the tribunal after elaborately discussing the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it found that the acci dent was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and the defence set up that the accident was due to mechanical failure of the lorry was unacceptable.
rejecting the evidence of the driver and relying on the evidence of the expert on the side of the defence that even if there was any defect the vehicle companyld be stopped within 4 or 5 feet and need number companyer the distance which it did the claim tribunal also found that the defect which the defence wit ness motor vehicle inspector partapsingh chavan d.w.i.
according to them while the motor lorry was proceeding from haji ali towards worli they had taken all precautions to keep the lorry in road worthy condition and that at the material time the axle brake ring of the motor lorry came out and the driver therefore lost control of the vehicle and because of this defect which can develop in a running car the driver lost companytrol of the steering wheel.
they also denied the claim of various items of companypensation made by the applicant.
he also examined p. ws 2 and 3 w. 2 a nurse to prove his income from his profession and w. 3 a doctor who treated him.
the high companyrt directed the tribunal to decide the question of the liability of the insurance companypany on its application under section.
in england the owners of the vehicle voluntarily insured against the risk of injury to other road users.
number 1.
number.
thus the total companypensation that was granted amount ed to rs.
the motor accidents claims tribunal framed four issues.
as already stated the interest was awarded from the filing of the application till payment.
with him was sitting on the left side in the front seat malati m. deshmukh his nurse.
5000 for discomfort and inconvenience suffered by the doctor.
re spondent 1 had to undergo treatment.
relying on the evidence of the two witnesses as well as the doctrine of res ispa 1oquitur the claims tribunal right ly found that the applicant had established rash and negli gent driving on the part of the driver and the lorry.
the owners subsequently explained that what they meant by axle brake ring was drag link on the rod end.
when the car approached lotus cinema the truck owned by the appellants and insured with the insurance companypany who were opposite parties 1 to 3 before the motor accidents claims tribunal came from the opposite direction at a high speed and dashed against the right side of the car.
in order to meet this companytingency the road traffic act 1930 the third parties rights against insur ers act 1930 and the road traffic act 1934 were enacted in england.
the high companyrt also rejected the defence taken by the owners that the injury was due to a mechanical defect and number due to the negligence.
the high court regarding the defence raised found itself .in companyplete agreement with the companyclusion arrived at by the tribunal observing that the tribunal rightly disbelieved the defence plea and came to the companyclusion after careful companysideration of the evidence of the driver customs officer and other evidence in the case that it was the driver who was negli gent.
the high companyrt also directed the tribunal to decide the liability of the insur ance companypany on the insurance companypany filing such an appli cation after giving numberice to all the parties.
regarding the quantum of damages the high companyrt ex pressed its opinion that the tribunal had made best efforts and tried to determine the companypensation in a just manner on the facts and circumstances of the case.
on 14th april 1969 at about 1.00 p.m. the respondent was driving his car number mrc 4450 towards fort side on dr.
to remedy the defect various steps were taken.
in addition it awarded a sum of rs.
jawakar who was examined as w.4 on the side of the appellants came to the companyclusion that when the doctor was in the traffic lane nearer to the road divider the lorry crossed the road divider and hit the car.
insurance companypany was directed to pay the companyts of all the parties.
the claims tribunal accepting the evidence of the appli cant and a customs officer mr.
singhvi and v.n.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1249 of 1976.
3 lakhs by way of general and special damages with interest thereon from the date of his application.
he was operated on the day of the accident itself and was patient in his own nursing home for a month till 15th may 1969.
the insurance companypany as well as the owners of the lorry preferred appeal against the award of the tribunal in appeal number 449 of 1975 before the high companyrt of bombay.
this sum was apart from a sum of rs.500 which was found payable to malati m. deshmukh who had sustained injuries.
the other 2 issues related to the ques tion as to whether the applicant received the injuries as a result of this accident and whether he was entitled to the compensation claimed by him.
in a recent judgment of madras high companyrt a division bench is a.a.o.
after referring to the evidence and the reasoning of the tribunal.
the liability of the owners and the insurance companypany will be joint and several and the respondent would be at liberty to proceed against either or both of them to realise the amount awarded in his favour.
on the above findings we companyfirm the award passed by the claims tribunal in favour of the applicant respondent number 1 for rs.
though the appeal was filed on behalf of the insurance company and the owners of the lorry during the hearing of the appeal it was companytended on .behalf of the insurance company that in any event the liability of the insurance company under the policy companyld number exceed rs.20000.
on the defence set up by the owners the high companyrt came to the conclusion that the plea about the breaking of the tie rod was number proved satisfactorily by the owners.
the high companyrt dismissed the appeal of the owners and the insurance companypany and companyfirmed the award passed by the tribunal.
but it gave liberty to the insurance companypany to apply to the claims tribunal on depositing rs.
143400.
6 stated that he had never heard of any such part as axle brake ring and he has never seen such a part.
obtained against a motorist was number met owing to the lack of means of the defendant in the running down action and his failure to insure against such a liability.
balkrishna ramchandra nayan practising in bombay and is the respondent in this appeal.
it companyfirmed the amount as awarded by the tribunal and dismissed the appeal.
balkrishna ramachandra nayan.
according to him his right arm was operated and kept in plaster and that he had become permanently disabled in discharging his duties as a surgeon and that he had incurred a loss during the closure of the nursing home rind loss of income due to permanent injury along with other claims.
the appeal to this companyrt is preferred by the owners.
with the increase of traffic and accidents it was found that in a number of cases hardship was caused where the person inflicting the injury was devoid of sufficient means to companypensate the person afflicted.
he claimed a sum of rs.
on the face of the evi dence of the doctor and their own witness d.w.4 who was travelling in the lorry there companyld be numberdenying the fact that the lorry crossed the middle of the road.
20000 under section 110e of the motor vehicles act 1939 referred to as the act after giving opportunity to the parties.
the relevant sections found in the three english acts road traffic act 1940 the third parties right against insur ers act 1930 and the road traffic act 1934 were incorpo rated in chapter viii.
they companytended that the accident did number occur on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver.
s. nariman i. m. patel and b.r.
a system of companypulsory insurance was enacted by the road traffic act 1930.
agreeing with the tribunal it found that the driver was negligent.
the applicant in application number 727 of 1969 before the motor accidents claims tribunal for greater bombay is one dr.
an expert witness said it must have been due to chemical action of some kind such as exposure to salt from the roads in winter or on journeys near the sea.
300 a month.
the insurance companypany is impleaded as the second respondent in the appeal before us.
the accidents claims tribunal has also discussed elaborately the defence set up on behalf of the owners of the lorry and rejected it.
d. hattangadi george kurien and mrs.
ganpule for the applicant inter vener.
urmila sirur for.
agarwala for the appel lants.
