The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation in motor accident cases, considering the deceased's potential income and the validity of insurance coverage under the Motor Vehicles Act.

1. The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / National Insurance Company Limited against the award and decree dated 09.04.2007, made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.485 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Gingee.

2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-

On 29.07.2004, at about 07.30 p.m., when the (deceased) Rajakannu @ Anthoni Raj was walking from Vellanthangal Koot Road towards Vellanthangal and when he was near Chinnamedu, the tractor bearing Registration No.TDF-8263, driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the (deceased) Rajakannu @ Anthoni Raj. The (deceased) Rajakannu @ Anthoni Raj sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the petitioners, who are the legal-heirs of the deceased, have filed a claim for Rs.10,00,000/- against the respondents. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent is the insurer of the vehicle.

3. The second respondent, in his counter has resisted the claim and denied the averments in the claim regarding manner of accident, age and occupation of the deceased Rajakannu @ Anthoni Raj. It was also stated that the first respondent's vehilce i.e., tractor & trailer was not insured with them at the time of accident and that the driver did not have a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. It was also stated that the petitioners should prove that the vehicle was covered under valid R.C. and F.C at the time of accident. It was also stated that the deceased died only because of his negligence and that there was no negligence on the part of the first respondent's vehicle driver. It was stated that the claim was excessive.

4. On the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration in this case, namely;

“(i) Did the accident occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent's driver?

(ii) Are the petitioners entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?”

5. On the petitioners side, two witnesses were examined and three documents were marked as Exs.P1, P2 and P3 viz., FIR, Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, Post-mortem certificate. On the respondents side, two witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

6. PW1, the father of the deceased, had adduced evidence which was in consonance with the averments in the claim regarding manner of accident. PW2, the eyewitness of the accident, adduced evidence that on 29.07.2004, at about 07.30 p.m., when the (deceased) Rajakannu was walking on the left side of the road, near Chinnamedu, the tractor coming in the opposite direction, had been driven in the wrong side of the road and dashed against the (deceased) Rajakannu. As a result of which, the (deceased) Rajakannu had died on the spot. The complaint regarding the said accident had been given by one Moyees. From scrutiny of the F.I.R., it is seen that when the said Moyees and the (deceased) Rajakannu were on their way to Vellanthangal, and when they were near Chinnamedu near Pudur, the tractor bearing Registration No.TDF 8263, which was coming in the opposite direction, carrying a sugarcane load, and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against the (deceased) Rajakannu and the tyre of the tractor had run over the left head of the (deceased) Rajakannu. His brain had been smashed and he had died on the spot. RW1, the Assistant Inspector in the second respondent's firm had adduced evidence that only the first trailer attached to the front portion of the tractor bearing Registration No.TN45-H-9899 had been covered under a policy of Insurance with them and that the second trailer, attached to it, bearing Registration No.TN47-T-9717 had not been insured with them. Hence, it was stated that the second respondent cannot be held liable to pay compensation. RW2, the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Dindivanam had also adduced evidence that o