JUDGMENT :

V.M. VELUMANI, J.

1. The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode.”

2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the award dated 31.08.2017 made in M.C.O.P. No. 827 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Namakkal.

3. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 827 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Namakkal. The respondents 1 to 5 filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Jagadeesan, who died in the accident that took place on 26.08.2012.

4. According to respondents 1 to 5, on 26.08.2012 at about 01.10 A.M. while the deceased Jagadeesan was walking on the Tiruchengode-Namakkal Road, near Wine Shop opposite, Kumaramankalam, the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-34L-8865, drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed on the backside of the said Jagadeesan and caused the accident. In the accident, the said Jagadeesan sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the respondents filed the above said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the said Jagadeesan against the 6th respondent and appellant-Insurance Company, being the owner and insurer of the motorcycle respectively.

5. The 6th respondent-owner of the motorcycle remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

6. The appellant-Insurance Company, being the insurer of the motorcycle filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 to 5. The appellant denied the manner of accident as alleged by the respondents 1 to 5. According to the appellant, the deceased Jagadeesan in inebriated condition, suddenly fell down in front of the motorcycle and invited the accident. In F.I.R. the rider of the motorcycle was mentioned as Periyadurai but in the claim petition, it was mentioned that the 5th respondent drove the motorcycle. In the Accident Register it has been mentioned that the deceased was smelling alcohol and the Police also filed the final report as mistake of fact. The rider of the motorcycle was not possessing valid driving license and the 6th respondent violated the policy conditions. Hence, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. The respondents 1 to 5 have to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased by producing valid document. The appellant denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the respondents 1 to 5 are highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

7. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent examined himself as PW-1, one Palaniappan, eyewitness to the accident was examined as PW-2, one Selvakumar was examined as PW-3 and 7 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7. The appellant-Insurance Company examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and four documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R4. Exs.C1 to C5 were marked as Court documents.

8. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the motorcycle owned by 6th respondent and directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 3,49,000/- as compensation to respondents 1 to 5 at the first instance and recover the same from the 6th respondent.

9. To set aside the said award dated 31.08.2017 made in M.C.O.P. No. 827 of 2012, the appellant has come out with the present appeal.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the deceased only fell down in front of the motorcycle in an inebriated condition and invited the accident. There was no negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle owned by 6th respondent. The owner of the motorcycle violated the policy condition by allowing the rider to ride the motorcycle without possessing driving license at the time of ac