K. Kannan, J. - (1.) For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the appeal is restored to file.
(2.) THE appeal is by the owner and driver of the tractor attached to the trailer that was involved in a collision with Tata sumo car in which the deceased was travelling. The claimants contended in their petition that both the drivers of the vehicles were responsible for the accident, but at the trial, the evidence was led to the effect that it was the driver of the tractor, who was solely responsible for the accident. The driver of the tractor himself gave evidence stating that the tractor was going on the main road, while the Tata sumo car came on the main road from the side road and caused collision by coming on the wrong side. The mechanical report showed that only the Tata sumo car had been damaged on the driver's side but no part of the tractor had been seriously damaged or dented. The driver also wanted to contend that the driver of the Tata sumo car did not have headlight on when the accident took place at night. The contention of the respondents was sought to be supported through a rough sketch, which according to the driver of the tractor, showed that the accident could not have been by the negligent driving of the tractor. Apart from the claimants, there was also an eyewitness PW5, who spoke to the fact that the tractor had come to the wrong side and it had caused collision with the Tata sumo car. It was in evidence that the trailer had been loaded with stacks of harvested wheat or rice and it was literally spilling out of the trailer by the sheer volume of the goods that were loaded in the vehicle. The Tribunal reasoned that the road was about 20 to 22 feet broad and two vehicles coming from opposite directions could not have easily gone, particularly in view of the heavily laden weight of the tractor that occupied a large volume. The Tribunal further stated that in a collision of that type unless both the drivers had been negligent, there could not have been an accident and, therefore, apportioned liability in equal measures between the driver of the tractor and the driver of the Tata sumo car. I will not take the contention that the sumo car was coming from the side road or there had been no damage to the tractor as of any consequence, especially, when it was an accident not on any particular side of the tractor but the collision had happened on the driver's portion and the Tata sumo car had also been seriously damaged. A trailer which was loaded with huge volume of haystacks was bound to literally stop for any vehicle coming from the opposite direction and a greater amount of circumspection on the part of the driver of the tractor ought to have avoided to the collision. The Tribunal also stated that the rough sketch itself cannot truly depict the place of collision because the sketch had merely revealed the respective positions of the vehicles that remained parked after the collision. The overall consideration of the evidence regarding negligence by the Tribunal is exhaustive and I do not think there is a case for an intervention.
(3.) I also noticed that the owner of the tractor has exposed a third party to a gross risk of difficulty in recoveries by not taking a compulsory insurance which he was bound to have taken. The police must have even registered a case against the owner and driver for breach of Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act. I would not try to reopen this issue at this length of time but I would only point out to say that both the owner and driver of the uninsured vehicle were not entitled to any sympathy from this court. The appeal is dismissed.;