JUDGMENT :

(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode”)

This appeal has been filed to set aside the award of the Tribunal dated 16.10.2020 made in M.C.O.P. No.28 of 2016, on the file of the Sub Court, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Sankari.

2. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the 1st respondent, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The appellants/claimants filed M.C.O.P.No.28 of 2016, on the file of the Sub Court, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Sankari, claiming a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Ramesh @ Ravi who died in the accident that took place on 29.10.2015.

4. According to the appellants, on the date of accident, when the deceased Ramesh @ Ravi was traveling as a pillion rider in a Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-54-D-5089 driven by one Paunraj from Namakkal – Salem Road, near the bridge opposite to Keeranur Vetri Vikas Girls Higher Secondary School, the said Paunraj drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the centre median of the National Highways and caused the accident. In the accident, both the Paunraj/rider-cum-owner as well as Rajesh @ Ravi/pillion rider of the Motorcycle sustained fatal injuries. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent riding by Paunraj/rider-cum-owner of the Motorcycle. Hence, the appellants filed the said claim petition, claiming compensation for the death of one Rajesh @ Ravi against the said Paunraj and 1st respondent-Insurance Company as rider-cum-owner and insurer of the Motorcycle respectively. Since the said Paunraj died in the accident, the 2nd respondent herein/wife of the said Paunraj was impleaded as 3rd respondent in the claim petition.

5. The 1st respondent-Insurance Company filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the appellants in the claim petition. According to the 1st respondent, at the time of accident, the rider of the Motorcycle drove the vehicle under the influence of alcohol and violated the policy condition. When the said Paunraj/rider of the Motorcycle died on the same day of accident, the claim petition filed impleading the said Paunraj as 1st respondent is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the appellants has also filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.48 of 2016 on the file of the Sub Court, Sankari claiming compensation for the death of said Paunraj. In any event, the appellants have to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased to claim compensation. The total compensation claimed by the appellants is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. The 2nd respondent, wife of the owner of the Motorcycle, remained exparte before the Tribunal.

7. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd appellant examined herself as P.W.1, one Shanmugam, co-employer of the deceased Rajesh @ Ravi as P.W.2, one Kadhirvel as P.W.3 and marked 9 documents as Exs.P1 to P9. The respondents did not let in any oral and documentary evidence.

8. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding by rider of the Motorcycle owned by the husband of the 2nd respondent and fixed 15% negligence on the part of the deceased Rajesh @ Ravi for not wearing helmet at the time of accident and awarded a sum of Rs.11,04,000/- as compensation to the appellants. The Tribunal directed the respondents to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.9,40,000/- being 85% of the award amount as compensation to the appellants.

9. Questioning the 15% contributory negligence fixed on the deceased and not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal in the award dated 16.10.2020 made in M.C.O.P. No.28 of 2016, the appellants have come out with the present appeal.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the Tri