6. The learned counsel for the appellants in CMA.No.375 of
2007 submitted that though one Kannusamy @ Subramaniam lodged
complaint alleging that only on the rash and negligent driving of
the tata sumo driver, the accident took place, he was not
examined by the second respondent herein. The claimants have
examined PW12, who is the eye witness to the accident and he
categorically deposed that only on the rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the lorry, the accident took place. He also
deposed that the driver of the tata sumo had driven his van after
following the traffic rules. Without considering the evidence of
PW12, the Tribunal had fastened the liability on the driver of
the tata sumo. Further, the Tribunal only on assumption, without
any material evidence, concluded as if the driver of the tata
sumo had driven the vehicle for the past 1 ½ days without
sleeping since his daughter was missing. Therefore, all the
family members had taken the vehicle and searching for their
daughter for 1 ½ days without stopping the vehicle. Only to claim
insurance to the persons who were travelling in the tata sumo, it
was deposed that the accident took place only on the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Those conclusions
are not based on any witness and any piece of evidence. When the
claimants have examined PW12, who is the witness to the accident,
the Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability on the driver
of the lorry. Further, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of
Rs.50,000/- that too, under 'no fault claim'.
