1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award dated 30.07.2013 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 885 of 2009 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court), Chennai, wherein and whereby the Tribunal dismissed entire claim petition.

2. Brief facts are that on 10.12.2008 at about 7.00 hours, the clamant injured was proceeding in his motorcycle bearing registration No.TN 01 AB 4645 from west to east at Sakthinagar near Deepika Gas agency, Thirumullaivoil at that time a van bearing Registration No. TN 20 AK 1197 was driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and hit the motor cycle, thereby the petitioner sustained grievous and the driver of van is responsible for accident taking advantage of grievous injury in the accident, a criminal case in Crime No. 805 of 2008 has been registered against injured was registered by Poonamallee Traffic investigation. At the time of accident, the injured was aged 35 years and was working as Tabella player and was earning Rs.3,300/- per month. Stating that the accident occurred only because a driver of van crossed the road, the respondents, who are insured and insurer are liable to pay compensation, hence injured have filed claim petition under Section 163 A of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.5,28,340/-.

3. Denying the accident, the 1st Respondent/owner and insurance company filed counter stating that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle i.e., the injured. It is stated that no extra premium was paid by the owner to cover the risk of the rider of the motorcycle. The claimant being the rider of the motorcycle, and he himself tort only due to the rash and negligent rider FIR has been registered against him, so the respondents is not liable to pay compensation. The age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased are denied by the Respondents. The compensation claimed by the petitioner under various heads is on the higher side and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and doctor was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. One Mr. Elango, Sub Inspector of police, was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R1 to R4 was marked on the side of the 2nd Respondent.

5. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the claimant tort-fester and FIR has been registered against and charge sheet also filed against him and examined Sub Inspector of police and dismissed claim petition on the ground that petitioner’s bike skidded and motor cycle hit the front right side of the van, so the accident happened due to petitioner mistake. Challenging the findings, the appellant claimant has filed the present appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in relying the criminal court records and rough sketch Ex P-3, and without considering injured statements and failed to note that if claim petition filed Under section 163 A inter alia negligent need not pleaded and proved in absence any concrete evidence let by respondent as held in the recent judgment of Apex court. He would submit that the Tribunal has ignored the correct legal position and instead referred on a decision which was not correct at all.

7. The learned counsel then submitted that the Tribunal erred in not fixing the earnings/dependency and multiplier without any basis and as such the ultimate award is far in excess of what may be just and prayed for setting aside the award of the Tribunal. In support, the learned counsel relied upon the following decisions :

(1) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunil Kumar and another, reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 753 (SC)

(2) Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, reported in 2004(1) TN MAC (SC) 193,

(3)