Case: United India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs. A.N.Subbulakshmi

3. The matter arises from an unfortunate accident in which two lives were lost. On 14 May, 1981 at about 6.30 in the morning acollision between an Ambassador car bearing Registration No. MDO 7789 and a lorry bearing Registration No. MDR 3106 took place on the TrichyChennai highway near Thozhuthur. As a result of the collision the Ambassador Car was badly smashed and turned turtle. Its owner, Annamalai, who was on the drivers seat died on the spot. Another person, namely, Sigappi, aged about 24 years who worked as Annamalais Secretary and who was sitting on the rear seat along with the latters son was thrown out of the car and she too died on the spot. However, Annamalais wife and daughter sitting on the front seat and his son sitting on the rear seat survived. In the accident the truck also suffered substantial damage.4. In regard to the accident three claim cases came to be filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore. MACTOP No.198 of 1982 was filed by the owner of the lorry, M/s. Aruppukottai Sri Jaya Vilas Pvt. Ltd. claiming compensation of Rs.58, 300/for the damage caused to the lorry MDR 3106 in the accident, allegedly resulting from the rash and negligent driving of the car MDO 7789. The claim of the lorrys owner was resisted by the legal representatives of the deceased Annamalai. Another claim petition, MACTOP no.625 of 1981 was filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Sigappi against the owner of the lorry and its insurer claiming damages for her death. A third claim petition, MACTOP No.627 of 1981 was filed by the wife and children of the deceased Annamalai, the owner of the car, against the owner of the lorry and its insurer claiming a sum of Rs.10,04,600/as compensation for his death.5. The Tribunal by order dated 22 January, 1986 found and held that the accident was caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driver, Annamalai. There was no mistake, rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. He accordingly rejected the claims instituted by the heirs of the deceased Annamalai and the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Siggapi. Further, in accordance with its finding, the Tribunal allowed the claim of the owner of the lorry but instead of Rs.58, 300/as claimed in the petition, awarded the smaller amount of Rs.14,100/with 7% interest to be recovered from the assets left by the deceased Annamalai in the hands of his heirs, impleaded as respondents in the claim petition.6. Against the order passed by the Tribunal three separate appeals came to be filed in the Madras High Court. These appeals were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 12 December, 2003. The High Court reversed the finding of the Tribunal as to the cause of the accident and on a detailed examination of all the evidences onThe High Court then proceeded to determine the amounts of compensation payable for the death of Siggapi and Annamalai and directed the owner and insurer of the lorry to pay half the amount of compensation fixed by it in each case to the respective claimants (since the responsibility for the accident lay equally on the two sides). In case of Siggapi the amount payable to the claimants by the owner and insurer of the lorry is Rs.25,000/with 6% interest from the date of the claim petition and in case of Annamalai the amount payable to the claimants by the owner and the insurer of the lorry worked out to Rs.3,25,000/with 6% interest from the date of claim petition to the claimants.It is this direction making it the liability of the insurer to pay the amounts of compensation to the two claimants that causes grievance to the appellant and these appeals are preferred on the limited question about the validity of the High Courts direction.

Reasoning:
10. The Constitution Bench decision applies to the facts of this case with full force. We accordingly hold and find that the impugned direction of the High Court is unsustainable in law.