The main legal point established is the liability of the Insurance Company in a road accident case and the court's confirmation of the quantum of compensation determined by the tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2010, made in M.C.O.P. No. 664 of 2006, on the file of the III Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing.”

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2010, made in M.C.O.P. No. 664 of 2006, on the file of the III Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 664 of 2006, on the file of the III Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The respondents 1 to 4 have filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- restricted to Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for the death occurred in the road accident that took place on 11.03.2005.

3. According to the respondents 1 to 4/claimants, on 11.03.2005 at about 7.30 pm when the deceased was walking along East Coast Road with his son Venkatesan from Uthandi to Kanathoor, at that time the first respondent’s TVS Victor Motor Cycle bearing Regn.No. TN-07-AA-5860 came in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased, thereby deceased died on 11.03.2005 itself. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent’s Motor Cycle rider. Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased Ramanujam, the claimants/respondents 1 to 4 herein have filed a claim petition before the tribunal, claiming compensation against the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-

4. The appellant-Insurance Company, filed counter statement before the tribunal and denied the validity of insurance of the alleged vehicle on the date of accident and holding of valid driving licence by the rider of the vehicle. It is further stated in the counter statement that the alleged vehilce was not involved in the said accident. It is a fraudulent attempt to substitute the vehicle to make a fraud claim. Age of the deceased and the income of the deceased claimed by the claimants was also denied by the Insurance Company.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st and 2nd respondents examined themselves as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked documents as ExP1 to P5. The appellant examined its official as RW-1 and marked documents Exts.R1 to R5.

6. The Tribunal after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, fixed liability on the rider of the two wheeler and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- under various heads together with interest at 7.5% per annum payable by the Insurance Company being the insurer of the vehicle.

7. Challenging the liability fastened on them by the award dated 25.11.2010, made in M.C.O.P. No. 664 of 2006, the appellant-Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the tribunal ought not to have relied upon the eyewitness PW-2 to the accident, who is the second son of the deceased who deposed the involvement of the subject vehicle on the date of the accident. The tribunal was not justified in accepting the evidence of PW-2 in the absence of any other public witnesses, who were present at the occurrence place. The learned counsel further submitted that the subject vehicle bearing Reg. No. TN-07AA-5860 not belonged to the 5th respondent as claimed by the respondents 1 to 4, but it is belonged to one K. Gopi, who is the owner of the Motor Cycle bearing Reg. No. TN-09T-3794. The tribunal without examining the said K. Gopi to establish the involvement of the vehicle in the alleged road accident, rendered findings based on the Ex/P1-FIR and the evidence of PW-2, which is unsustainable in law. The learned counsel for the appellant also vehemently opposed the age of the deceased and the quantum of compensation determined by the tribunal adopting multiplier method.

9. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4/claimants submitt