- (1.) THE Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Appellants, challenging the tortious liability fastened upon the Appellants in respect of 50% of composite negligence.
(2.) THE matrix of the case is as follows: The First Respondent, who is the Petitioner in the Tribunal, has filed Claim Petition stating that he is aged about 40 years and he is a Chamber Supervisor and Agriculturist and thereby earning Rs.2,500/ - per month. On the fateful day of 1.10.1999 at 6.30 p.m., when the First Respondent/Petitioner, as a pillion rider, was proceeding on TVS -50 Moped bearing Regn. No.TN -33 -L -4079, with his frient towards Tirukoilur, Main Road from west to east, near Anavari Railway Gate, from Madapatu to Tirukoilur, the Lorry bearing Registration No.TCZ -9100 belonging to the Second Respondent, which was driver by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the Petitioner. As a result of the accident, the First Respondent/Petitioner sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after accident, he was taken to Government Hospital, Villupuram and then referred to Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry. He Sustained grievous injuries, which leads to permanent disability. Hence, he estimated the compensation to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/ -. The Lorry belonging to the First Respondent has been Insured With the Second Respondent and TVS -50 Moped belonging to the First Appellant/Third Respondent in Tribunal, has been Insured with Second Appellant/Fourth Respondent in Tribunal. The Second Appellant herein/Fourth Respondent in Tribunal filed a detailed Counter, stating that the driver of the Lorry alone responsible for the accident and he driven the Lorry, without observing the road norms and Traffic Rules and dashed against the Petitioner, while he was traveling as a pillion rider, who is the First Respondent herein, hence he is not liable to pay any compensation and he also disputed the age, avocation, income, nature of injury, period of treatment and percentage of disability of the First Respondent/Petitioner.
(3.) THE Third Respondent herein/Second Respondent in Tribunal has also filed a detailed Counter, stating that the driver of the Lorry is not responsible for the accident, only the Petitioner himself is solely responsible for the accident, as he has rode the vehicle in the middle of the road along with the pillion rider, without observing road norms and Traffic Rules and cause accident. Hence, he is not liable to pay any compensation and he also disputed the age, avocation, income, nature of injury, permanent disability and Loss of Earning Power of the Petitioner.;