The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability and quantum of compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.1469 of 2004, dated 26.06.2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchirappalli.)

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, challenging the award, dated 26.06.2011, made in M.C.O.P.No.1469 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court), Tiruchirappalli.

2. The Appellant/Insurer, who was made liable to pay compensation of Rs.4,11,000/- to the claimants for the death of Saravanan, who died in an accident occurred on 04.02.2004, challenged the liability mulcted on it and the quantum of compensation arrived at by the tribunal. Admittedly, the first claimant is the father, the second claimant is the mother, the third claimant is the brother and the fourth claimant is the sister of the deceased Saravanan and that they have laid the above claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest.

3. The case of the claimants is that on 04.02.2004, at about 07.30 am, when the deceased was riding a two wheeler TVS 50 bearing Registration No.TN 45 F 9056 in Trichy-Karur Main Road at the place near Mukkombu, the lorry bearing Registration No.TDU 5335 owned by the fifth respondent/first respondent came behind the two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and without sounding horn, dashed against the two wheeler and as a result of which, the said Saravanan sustained multiple injuries all over his body and died on the spot and that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver.

4. It is their further case that the deceased Saravanan was aged about 20 years at the time of accident, that he was working in a poultry farm and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, that the claimants were depending on the income of the deceased and that since the lorry owned by the fifth respondent, was insured with the appellant at the time of accident, both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

5. The defence of the owner of the lorry and the insurer is of total denial. They have specifically disputed the involvement of the lorry bearing Registration No.TDU 5335 in the alleged accident and according to them, it was only a hit and run case. The main contention of the owner of the lorry is that one Muruganantham alleged to be the driver of the lorry was not at all engaged as a driver at any point of time and was never under the employment of the fifth respondent/owner and that since the driver was not at all involved, he is not liable for the claim.

6. The main contention of the Appellant/Insurer is that the claimants in collusion with the owner and driver of the lorry had substituted the lorry owned by the fifth respondent in the alleged accident, that the claim itself is a bogus one, that the two wheeler rider was not possessing valid driving license at the time of accident and that therefore, the Appellant/Insurer is in noway responsible for the claim. Both the owner and the insurer have also pleaded that the compensation claimed is excessive and out of proportion.

7. During enquiry, the claimants have examined the 1st claimant Maruthai as P.W.1 and two other witnesses, Sekar and Rajendran as P.W. 2 and P.W.3 respectively and exhibited seven documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. The fifth respondent/owner of the lorry had examined her son Suresh as R.W.1 and exhibited the letter alleged to have been written by her to the insurer under Ex.R.1. On the side of the Appellant/Insurer, they have examined their investigator and the staff as R.W.2 and R.W.3 respectively and exhibited two documents as Ex.R.2 and Ex.R.3 respectively.

8. The learned trial Judge, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the lorry driver was responsible for the accident and fastened the liability on the