The liability in a motor accident case is determined by preponderance of probabilities, and contributory negligence should be assessed based on the evidence available on record.

JUDGMENT :

Abdul Quddhose, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the insurance company challenging the award dated 02.03.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in MCOP.No.390 of 2015.

Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal:

2. A person by name Sastidharan died as a result of an accident caused by a Tipper lorry bearing registration No.TN20-AJ-3189 owned by the fourth respondent and insured with the Appellant. The accident happened while the deceased was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.TN22-CM-3253 from Veerapuram to Madipakkam on proceeding along Avadiveerapuram road at Kannadapalayam Vellanoor opposite to Sai Traders from North to South Direction, at that time, the Tripper lorry bearing registration No.TN20-AJ-3189 came in the opposite direction and collided with the two wheeler which resulted in the death of Sastidharan.

3. The dependents of the deceased who are his wife and two children preferred a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP.No.390 of 2015 against the fourth respondent as well as the Appellant seeking a compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- for the death of Sastidharan.

4. By an award dated 02.03.2018 passed in MCOP.No.390 of 2015 directed the Appellant Insurance Company to pay the claimants a sum of Rs.23,71,660/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realisation. Out of the total compensation of Rs.23,71,660/-, the Tribunal determined that a sum of Rs.11,71,660/- is payable to the first respondent and a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- is payable to the second and third respondents separately.

5. Aggrieved by the award dated 02.03.2018 passed in MCOP.No.390 of 2015 by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, the insurance company has preferred this appeal.

6. Heard Mr. S. Arunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-Insurance company and Mr. K. Varadhakamaraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

Discussion:

7. The Appellant insurance company has challenged the impugned award only on the ground that the Tribunal has erroneously came to the conclusion that the driver of the insured vehicle was responsible for the accident. According to them, the accident happened only due to the entire fault of the deceased as he came in the wrong side and he lost the control of his motor cycle due to his rash and negligent driving and he crossed the road and dashed against the insured vehicle (Tipper lorry). According to the Appellant, the Tribunal ought to have followed the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1996 ACJ 555 and not awarded more than Rs.50,000/- under “no fault liability” compensation. It is the further contention of the Appellant that the Tribunal ought to have considered the sketch properly and inferred that the deceased has suddenly crossed the lane in his motor cycle and hit against the lorry (insured vehicle).

8. This Court has perused and examined the impugned award as well as the materials and evidence available on record.

9. Before the Tribunal, the claimants have produced 13 documents which were marked as Ex.P1 to P13 and three witnesses were examined on his side viz., PW1 - the wife of the deceased who is the first respondent herein, PW2 - an eye-witness to the accident and PW3 - Official of Apex Logistics in which the deceased was working at the time of the accident. On the side of the fourth respondent as well as the Appellant, three documents were produced which were marked as Ex.R1 to R3 and a witness was examined viz., RW1 - driver of the Tipper lorry.

10. FIR was registered only against the driver of the insured vehicle (Tipper lorry). PW2, the brother of the deceased who was an eye-witness to the accident has deposed that only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tipper lorry (insured vehicle), the accident had happened which resulted in the death of Sastidharan. However, it is the case of the driver of the Tipp