The court confirmed the liability on the insurer of the Santro car based on the evidence of negligence by the Santro car driver and revised the quantum of compensation based on the social background and standard of living of the claimants.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.2 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Judge, Hosur.)

(This case has been heard through Video Conferencing)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents.

2. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company/fifth respondent in the claim petition alleging that there is contributory negligence on the driver of the car as well as lorry driver in the said accident. However, the Tribunal has fixed the entire negligence on the part of the car driver and responsibility to indemnify the claimants by the insurer of the Santro car. Besides responsibility, the quantum awarded by the Tribunal is also under challenge in this claim petition.

3. From the evidence, this Court finds that on 03.05.2009, at about 07.30 a.m., when the family members of the deceased Pranav Kumar aged about 13 years were proceeding from Trichy to Hosur in a Hyundai Santro Car bearing Registration No. KA30-M-8008 owned by one Raghavendra and driven by him hit the lorry bearing Registration No.TN23-AD-3444 insured under the Oriental Insurance Company. The Santro car has dashed against the lorry from behind, in which, the minor boy Pranav Kumar aged 13 died. The owner cum driver also died in the said accident. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the lorry driver as well as the car driver, the claim petition was filed seeking Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of 13 years old boy.

4. The Insurance Company which insures Santro Car filed counter stating that the driver of the Santro car was not holding any valid driving license. The driver of the Santro car was driving his vehicle cautiously but only the lorry driver in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly swerved the vehicle and came to the middle of the road without noticing the car coming behind and caused the accident. Since the accident took place due to the negligence of the lorry driver, only the lorry owner and its insurer are liable to pay compensation, if any and not the insurer of the Santro car. In alternate, if the Court finds that there is a contributory negligence, higher responsibility has to be fixed on the lorry owner. The claim of Rs.10,00,000/- for the fatal death of 13 years old boy studying 8th standard is also on the higher side.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions and the evidence let in by the claimant as well as the Insurance Company, has held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the Santro car driver one Mr.Raghavendra. FIR Ex.P1 was registered against him for driving rash and negligently and hitting the rear of the ongoing lorry. The Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report marked as Ex.P2 indicates that it was the Santro car, which was the offending vehicle.

6. On considering the other submissions regarding the loss of income, the Tribunal has fixed Rs.10,800/- per month as notional income for the 13 years old boy. After deducting 50% for his personal expenditure, applied multiplier ‘14’ and computed the loss of income. Besides, Rs.10,000 for transport expenses and Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses was awarded. In total, a sum of Rs.9,27,000/- was awarded to the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased boy.

7. The compensation was directed to be paid by the fifth respondent/ Insurer of the Santro Car with 7.5% interest from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

8. In this appeal, as stated earlier, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that without contribution of the lorry, the accident could not have occurred. Therefore, the total exoneration of the lorry owner and its insurer is incorrect. The Santro car, which was following the lorry forced to dash against the lorry since the lorry swerved suddenly without noticing the car coming behind. Therefore, the lorry owner insurer should be mulcted with