JUDGMENT :

S. Kannammal, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the award and decree dated 23.04.2019 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 51 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of the Special Sub Judge (MACT), Krishnagiri, (for short, 'the Tribunal').

2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 51 of 2018 before the Tribunal. The 1st respondent herein filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 17.11.2017. The second respondent is the owner of the lorry, who remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

3. As per the claim petition, on 07.11.2017, at about 12.15 pm the claimant was walking on the road, towards the toll plaza where he was employed. At that time, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. KA 02 AF 9586 belonged to the second respondent in this appeal and insured with the appellant, was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant from behind. In the impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was taken to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Krishnagiri where he was admitted as an in-patient. According to the claimant, he sustained fracture in both his legs, injury in his right side lungs, fracture in his left hand fingers, fracture of right ribs and multiple fracture all over his body. It is stated by the claimant that even after discharge from the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri, he was admitted in Saraswathi Hospital, Krishnagiri where he had undergone a surgery. During such surgery, rods were inserted in both his legs. It is also stated that the claimant is taking treatment for the injuries he sustained in the accident continuously. As per the claim petition, the claimant was aged 26 years at the time of accident. He was employed as a Toll Attender (Bill Collection) at Toll Plaza, Krishnagiri and earning Rs.14,500/- per month. On account of the injuries he sustained, he lost his avocation and could not work as before. Therefore, he filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.45 lakhs as compensation.

4. The Claim Petition was resisted by the appellant Insurance Company by filing a counter statement contending inter alia that the manner of accident, as projected by the claimant is incorrect. It was the claimant, who, without noticing the lorry moving out of the weigh bridge suddenly darted across the road, which resulted in the accident. The Insurance Company also denied the age, avocation and income of the claimant and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. Before the Tribunal, in order to prove the averments in the claim petition, the claimant examined himself as PW1 besides examining the Manager of the Toll Plaza as PW2 and marked Exs. P1 to P11. On behalf of the Insurance Company, one Sivaguru was examined as RW1 and Ex.R1 to R3 were marked.

6. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.KA-02- AF-9586 belonging to the 2nd respondent and directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay a sum of 23,45,000/- as compensation to the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant has come forward with the present appeal.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company contended the accident had occurred near a Toll Plaza, where there are number of speed breakers to regulate the speeding vehicles. While so, the question of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry will not arise. The Tribunal, without proper appreciation of this aspect has concluded that the driver of the lorry alone is responsible for the accident. On the other hand, the claimant had equally contrib