The main legal point established in the judgment is that legal representatives, who were not the original claimants, could only represent the estate of the deceased claimant and were entitled to share what the original claimant was entitled to under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 31.01.2013 made in M.C.o.P.No.1126 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupur.)

(The case has been heard through video conference)

1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the liability fixed on the appellant and also the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. Brief facts of the case leading to the appeal is that, on 11.08.2009 at about 12.50 a.m., when one Mr.Durai @ Deivasigamani was driving the lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-38-AT-3209, another lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-KA-21C-0610 hit the lorry driven by Durai @ Deivasigamani. In the said accident, Durai @ Deivasigamani died. Case was registered against the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-KA-21C-0610. Claim petition was filed by the father of the deceased Durai @ Deivasigamani seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

3. As per the claim petition, the deceased Durai @ Deivasigamani was hale and healthy; was a bachelor; aged 34 years and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as driver. The claimant being the father and dependant on the deceased lost his income of his son. Hence, the claim petition filed to compensate the loss of income and dependency.

4. The appellant herein/third respondent (in the claim petition), who is the insurer of the offending lorry filed counter stating that the insurance policy for the vehicle is covering the period from 28.02.2009 to 27.02.2010. However, the driver of the vehicle had no valid licence. Therefore, for the contravention of the provision of Motor Vehicles Act and the insurance policy condition, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation prayed also questioned by the Insurance Company and sought leave to take all defence available to the vehicle owner.

5. When the claim petition was pending, the claimant Karanamoorthy, the father of the deceased accident victim died. His legal heirs were brought on record as claimants 2 to 6.

6. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and 7 documents were marked. The Tribunal framed the following points for consideration:-

(1) On whose negligence the accident occurred?

(2) From whom, the claimants can seek compensation?

(3) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? If yes, How much?

7. The Tribunal, relying upon the First Information Report marked as Ex.P1 and oral evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 held that the accident occurred due to the major negligence of the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-KA-21C-0610. The accident victim, who is the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.TN38-AT-3209 had minor contribution for the accident. Hence, apportioned the contribution between the two drivers in the ratio of 80:20.

8. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal taking note of the death certificate of the original claimant Karanamurthy(Ex.P6) and the legal heirs certificate (Ex.P7), held that the claimants who are the brothers and sisters of the deceased Durai @ Deivasigamani are entitled for compensation and notionally fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8550/-. After deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenditure, the Tribunal applied multiplier ‘17’ to compute loss of income. A total sum of Rs.12,94,800/- was assessed as compensation and out of which, the liability has been apportioned between the 3rd and 5th respondents two insurance companies in the ratio of 80:20.

9. The 3rd respondent/National Insurance Company, being aggrieved upon the fixation of liability and the quantum of compensation has filed the appeal.

10. The prime contention raised in the appeal is that, the Tribunal having concluded that both the drivers were negligent