IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.12.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN C.M.A.No.3775 of 2008 And M.P.No.1 of 2008 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Periakadaiveedhi, Dharapuram. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent vs. 1.Samiathal 2.Muthusamy 3.M/s.Devi Sri Sowdeswari Trust Hospital 4.Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Road Transport Corpn., Kovai Circle 2, Chennimalai Road, Erode. ... Respondents/Petitioner/ (3rd respondent ex parte before Lower Court Respondents 1 and 3 and hence notice may be dispensed with) Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 21/02/2007 made in M.C.O.P.No.104/2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Fast Track Court & Addl. District Court, Dharapuram. For appellant : M/s.M.B.Gopalan For respondents : Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy for R1 and R2 Ms.B.Vijayalakshmi for R4 R3 Ex-parte https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENT The appellant-Insurance Company has come forward with this appeal as against the grant of the award of Rs.3,57,350/- by the Tribunal in respect of the death of a person aged about 25 years in MCOP.No.104 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Fast Track Court & Addl. District Court, Dharapuram. 2.According to the appellant-Insurance Company, originally there was an accident in which the vehicle of the State Transport Corporation was involved. The person got injured. He had a head injury. The accident took place at 11.15 a.m. in the morning. He was admitted in the Kangeyam Government Hospital in a serious condition. Since further treatment could not be given in that hospital, he was referred to a highly sophisticated hospital in Coimbatore. In that process, he was taken in an ambulance. That ambulance is insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. When he was taken in the ambulance to Coimbatore again there was an accident and the person died. Though death occurred in the second accident, according to the appellant-Insurance Company, the initial accident was the root cause for the death of the person. But, the lower court has given the entire responsibility only on the Insurance company in which the ambulance is insured and has not done anything on the Transport Corporation which has initially made the injury. Therefore, the only question is that the lower court's order in so far as giving the 100% liability on the insured vehicle and not on the transport corporation vehicle is unjust and only on this ground this appeal has been preferred. 3.The learned counsel for the State Transport Corporation would vehemently contend that even though the original accident has occurred at 11.15 a.m. since the driver of the ambulance drove the vehicle in a very rash and negligent manner, another accident has occurred and charge sheet has been levelled against the driver of the ambulance and hence the lower court has rightly awarded 100% liability on the Insurance Company and not on the State Transport Corporation. Hence seeks to sustain the award. 4.In so far as the claimant is concerned, he has impleaded rightly both the Insurance Company where the ambulance is insured as well as the State Transport Corporation. Since both are jointly and severally responsible. Hence, they would only claim the award amount. 5.Heard all the parties. By consent, the main CMA itself is taken up for final disposal. 6.The only point of argument was that when the accident originally occurred at 11.15 a.m., the vehicle involved was the State https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Transport Corporation vehicle. The person sustained severe multiple head injuries. He was immediately hospitalised in the Kangeyam Government Hospital. Since, that hospital is not equipped with the proper equipments for the treatment of such injuries, he was referred to a better hospital at Coimbatore. In that process, the person was transported to Coimbatore through the ambulance which is insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. Fate did not stop with him, it continued with the ambulance again another accident took place and the person died. The fact remains whether it will be the Insurance Company where the ambulance was insured alone would be responsible or it will be jointly and severally liable by both the State Transport Corporation as well as the Insurance Company. 7.The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is very clear that but for the original accident in which a severe head injury has occurred necessity of transportation does not arise. Further, he would not have died in this accident. But for the impact he had already in his head which is a sever injury he died. Even otherwise, the Transport Corporation could be definitely responsible and liable in so far as the first injury is caused namely, the head injury. To that extent, the State Transport Corporation has to necessarily compensate the person to whom the head injury has occurred and this point was not considered by the court below. Therefore, fastening the entire liability on the Insurance Company is not correct is well founded. 8.Admittedly, if he has not been transported and if he still remained alive, the State Transport Corporation would be liable to pay the compensation for the injury sustained by the person due to the accident occurred at 11.15 a.m. Atleast to that extent the State Transport Corporation would be definitely liable. But in this case, unfortunately, he has died in the subsequent accident. Therefore, the lower court should not have granted the entire 100% liability on the Insurance Company. It should have awarded atleast certain amount on the Transport Corporation. In this connection, since the deceased has suffered severe injury due to the first accident, this Court finds it necessary to levy atleast 25% of the award amount to be payable by the State Transport Corporation and 75% award amount should be paid by the Insurance Company. As far as the quantum is concerned since there is no argument, the amount awarded by the court below is confirmed. 9.In the result, this appeal is partly allowed allowing the Insurance Company to pay 75% of the total award amount and the State Transport Corporation, the 4th respondent to pay 25% of the award amount. 10.Since the appellant has deposited only 50% of the award amount, the appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ balance 25% along with accrued interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the 4th respondent the State Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the balance 25% along with accrued interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such deposit being made, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar pri To Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Fast Track Court & Addl. District Court, Dharapuram. 1 CC to Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, Advocate, SR.74807 1 CC to Mr.M.B.Gopalan, Advocate, SR.74954 1 CC to Ms.B.Vijayalakshmi, Advocate, SR.74878 C.M.A.No.3775 of 2008 And M.P.No.1 of 2008 RS(CO) SRA(1/03/2012) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/