Court can award excess compensation against claimed amount.

The claimants have preferred the above appeal being aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub-Judge), Chengalpattu in M.C.O.P.No.180 of 1996.

2. The first appellant-wife and the second appellant-minor daughter of the deceased-Abharam Mathew filed M.C.O.P.No.180 of 1996 claiming a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-by way of compensation on the basis that while the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in the scooter bearing Registration No.TN09-E-1382 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent and driven by one Pushparaj on his way to Guduvanchery to Maraimalainagar. The driver of the scooter drove it rashly and negligently at a high speed and dashed on a blind end and was thrown off resulting in multiple injuries and instant death. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 30 years on the date of death and the appellants were aged 27 years and 2 years respectively. The deceased was a qualified Automobile Engineer, who had undergone training in Germany in the manufacturing of footwear and was employed as a Maintenance Executive with Wipro Limited on a monthly salary of Rs.7,500/-.

3. The first respondent-owner of the scooter (insured) remained exparte. The second respondent-insurer contested the claim petition interalia contending that the first respondent has parted with possession of the scooter in favour of the third party and such third parties are not covered by the terms of the Insurance Policy; the alleged rider of the scooter-Pushparaj had no driving licence on the date of accident; the scooter was driven by the deceased rashly and negligently and the accident occurred only due to his negligence and as such the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. The insurer did not admit the age, occupation, income, etc., of the deceased and contended that the compensation claimed is on the higher side.

4. Before the Tribunal, the first appellant was examined as P.W.1 and one Thiru.Srinivasan was examined as P.W.2 and on the side of the appellants Exs.P-1 to P-9 were marked. On the side of the respondents one Thiru.V.Ramasubramaniyam, Assistant Inspector, was examined as R.W.1 and Thiru.Pushparaj was examined as R.W.2 and Ex.R-1-copy of the Insurance Policy for the scooter was marked.

5. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case, the Tribunal, by observing that there is no evidence on hand to fix the responsibility on R.W.2, the circumstances of the case fairly shows that the deceased himself was driving the scooter-TN01-E-1382 rashly and negligently caused the accident and R.W.2-Thiru.Pushparaj had not driven the scooter, dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by that the claimants have filed the above appeal.

.6. Heard Mr. V.Raghavachari learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. S.Manohar learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-Insurer.

.7. Mr. V.Raghavachari learned counsel for the appellants made the following submissions:-

.The Tribunal has not properly considered Ex.P-1-First Information Report and the evidence of P.W.2 who is an eye witness and who had deposed clearly that the deceased did not drive the scooter. Though Pushparaj (R.W.2) had sustained injuries, he had not filed any claim petition seeking compensation but he falsely claimed that he had filed a claim petition and as such the Tribunal ought to have held that R.W.2 is not trustworthy. The Tribunal has not properly considered the admission and the evidence of R.W.1. R.W.1 has deposed that the insurer had appointed an Investigating Officer to investigate the genuineness of the claim and from his report the insurer came to know that R.W.2-Pushparaj has no valid licence but the report of the Investigating Officer has not been produced before the Tribunal and the Tribunal failed to draw an adverse inference against the insurer. R.W.2 in his cross examination has stated that from the investigation the insurer