The court applied the principle of assessing future prospects and considered the income of the deceased in determining the compensation for death. It also emphasized the liability of the Insurance Company in road accident cases.

R.BANUMATHI, J.

Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded for the death of deceased Dr.Sezhiyan, Insurance Company has preferred appeal -C.M.A.No.1156 of 2009. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded for the death of Sezhian and also for the injuries sustained by Claimant Jayachandra, wife of Sezhian and seeking enhancement of compensation both in fatal as well as injury case, Claimants have preferred appeals -C.M.A.Nos.72 and 76 of 2011 respectively.

2. Brief facts are that on 24.02.2002 at about 18.45 hours, deceased Sezhian was riding his two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-07 L 3007 on Tharamani 100 feet road from east to west. At that time, the van bearing registration No.TN-49-A 2700 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction and hit against the two wheeler. Due to the accident, Sezhian and his wife (Claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1901 of 2002) and minor son were thrown away from the two wheeler and Sezhian sustained grievous injuries all over the body and succumbed to injuries in Malar Hospital on the same day. In the accident, Claimant Jayachandra also sustained grievous injuries. Regarding the accident criminal case was registered against the van driver in Crime No.82 of 2002 under Section 337 I.P.C. of Traffic and Investigation J-3 Guindy Police Station. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the van driver, for the death of Sezhian, Claimants, who are wife and minor son have filed M.C.O.P.No.1902 of 2002 claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-. For the injuries sustained by Jayachandra, M.C.O.P.No.1901 of 2002 was filed claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

3. Insurance Company resisted the Claim Petition in M.C.O.P.No.1902 of 2002 contending that deceased Sezhian was riding the two wheeler in Taramani 100 feet road from east to west direction speedily and in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the van. It is averred that the accident occurred only due to own negligence of deceased Sezhian in riding his two wheeler and the driver of the van was not responsible for the accident and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Insurance Company also disputed the age, income of Sezhian. In the counter filed in the Claim Petition filed by injured Jayachandra in M.C.O.P.No.1901 of 2002, Insurance Company has disputed the percentage of disability sustained by the Claimant and the income.

4. Before the Tribunal both the Claim Petitions were tried together. Claimant-Jayachandra examined herself as P.W.1. Dr.Jothi Ramalingam was examined as P.W.2. The Managing Director of M/s.Millenex Solutions Private Limited, Chennai viz., S.Sethuraman was examined as P.W.3. Dr.Thiagarajan was examined as P.W.4. Exs.P1 to P44 were marked on the side of Claimants. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the side of Insurance Company.

5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Tribunal held that accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the van driver and that Insurance Company and owner of the van are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In M.C.O.P.No.1902 of 2002, for the death of Sezhian, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.23,11,000/-. In M.C.O.P.No.1901 of 2002 for the injuries sustained by Claimant Jayachandra, Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,41,000/-.

6. P.W.1-injured Claimant Jayachandra had clearly spoken about the manner of accident and that accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the van driver. Ex.P29 is the F.I.R. registered against the van driver. Evidence of P.W.1 and registration of Ex.P29-FIR against the van driver are unassailable. P.W.1 being the injured Claimant, her evidence stands on higher footing and credence to be attached to her evidence. In the counter, even though, Insurance Company has taken the plea of contributory negligence, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced to rebut the evidence adduced by the Claim