The court upheld the compensation award based on the negligence of the driver, the deceased's notional income, and the violation of policy conditions by the owner of the vehicle.

1. The appellant / second respondent has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2005, made in M.C.O.P.No.166 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Kallakurichi.

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

The claimants, who are the parents of the deceased Venkatesan, had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.166 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Kallakurichi, claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-as compensation, from the respondents, for the the death of the said Venkatesan in a motor vehicle accident.

3. It was submitted that on 07.08.2002, at about 04.30 p.m., when the deceased Venkatesan was proceeding in the first respondent's tractor bearing registration No.TN27 Q6584, the driver of the tractor drove it in a rash and negligent manner and as a result of which the vehicle capsized and the deceased Venkatesan sustained grievous injuries and died. At the time of accident, the deceased Venkatesan was aged 14 years and was working as a Tailor and earning Rs.5,000/-per month. Hence, the claimants had filed the claim petition against the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the tractor bearing registration No.TN.27 Q6584.

4. The first respondent, in his counter affidavit, had submitted that the claimants should prove the age, income and occupation of the deceased and manner of accident through documentary evidence. It was also submitted that the driver of the first respondent's tractor had not been rash and negligent in his driving as alleged in the claim petition. It was also that as the driver of the first respondent's vehicle had a valid licence and as the tractor was covered under a policy of insurance with the second respondent, the first respondent is not liable to pay any compensation and that only the second respondent is liable to pay compensation, if so decided by the Tribunal. It was also submitted that the claim was excessive.

5. The second respondent, in their counter affidavit, had submitted that the driver of the first respondent's tractor did not have a valid licence and that the tractor was not covered under a policy of insurance with them. It was also submitted that the first respondent's tractor driver had not been rash and negligent in his driving, as alleged in the claim. The averments made in the claim petition regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased was also not admitted. It was also submitted that as the first respondent had violated the policy conditions of insurance by permitting the deceased to travel as a gratuitous passenger in the tractor, only the first respondent is liable to pay compensation and that the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. It was also submitted that the claim was excessive.

6. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed three issues namely:

i. Whether the accident occurred by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent's tractor?

ii. Whether the deceased Venkatesan had travelled in the first respondent's tractor as a gratuitous passenger? and

iii. Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum?

7. On the claimants' side, the first claimant Raman was examined as P.W.1 and three documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P3 namely copy of FIR, copy of postmortem report and copy of M.V.I's report. On the respondents' side, three witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 to 3 and four documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R4 namely copy of policy, copy of claim for damages of tractor made by the first respondent with the second respondent, copy of letter sent by second respondent to first respondent stating that the first respondent is not entitled to get any compensation and investigation report of the investigation officer of the second respondent's firm.

8. P.W.1 had adduced evidence, which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim regard