ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SUDHA NILU GAUDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenges the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 19/03/2005 in Claim Petition No.32/1997.

(2.) THE parties shall be referred to in the manner they so appear in the cause title of the impugned judgment.

(3.) SHRI Afonso, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment essentially on one ground as the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not disputed by the appellant. The only contention sought to be canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is that on the basis of the evidence on record, it clearly establishes that there was composite negligence on the part of the driver of the minibus and the driver of the tanker. The learned Counsel has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider the said aspect and, as such, erroneously came to the conclusion that the amount of compensation is to be paid by the appellant and respondents nos.1 & 3, herein. The learned Counsel further submitted that there were other victims who had filed such claims for compensation and that composite negligence agreed by both the insurance companies before the Lok Adalat i.e. appellant and respondent no.6 was to the extent of 50%. The learned Counsel has taken me through the sketch as well as the evidence of CW2 and pointed out that the evidence on record discloses that the accident occurred at the place where the tanker was coming down the slope and the mini bus was ascending the slope on a straight road. The learned Counsel has taken me through the sketch prepared by the police at the site of the accident and pointed out that on the basis of the positions of the vehicles it clearly discloses that there is composite negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker which resulted in such accident. The learned Counsel, as such, submitted that the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside.