JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the award and decree dated 19.10.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.58 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court), Ramanathapuram.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.58 of 2011 dated 19.10.2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Ramanathapuram.

2. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the first respondent herein is the claimant and the respondents 2 to 4 herein are the respondents 1, 3 and 4 in the claim petition. The first respondent herein has filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No. 58 of 2011, claiming compensation for the death of one Francis Rekka, in an accident that took place on 05.09.2009. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 12,49,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs and Forty Nine Thousand only) as compensation. Against which, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. A brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.58 of 2011 is as follows:

On 05.09.2009, at about 03.30 p.m., when the deceased and others were travelling in an Alto car bearing registration No.TN-59-TMP-9209 from Velankani to Devipattinam, due to some mechanical defect, the vehicle become uncontrollable and dashed against a tamarind tree. The deceased and others sustained injuries. All the injured persons were admitted in Madurai Meenakshi Mission Hospital. The deceased died due to the accident. The deceased was aged about 25 years. She had completed Engineering and was working in a private institutions and was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) per month and she was arranging for a job in Singapore. The petitioner and the respondents 3 and 4 are the dependants of the deceased.

4. A brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent therein is as follows:

The manner of the accident as narrated in the petition is denied. The driver of the car drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner along the right side of the road and dashed against a Tamarind tree. Six persons travelled in the car against the permitted limit. The age, profession and income of the deceased are all denied.

5. The first respondent was set as exparte. On the side of the claimants, five witnesses were examined and 45 documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witnesses was examined and no documents was marked. After trial, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12,49,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs and Forty Nine Thousand only) as compensation to be paid by the respondents 1 and 2 therein. Against which, the appellant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the award is excessive. The driver of the car was negligent and he was responsible for the accident. The claimant was the driver of the vehicle and that the accident happened only due to his negligence. The claimants and the respondents 3, 4 are not entitled for any compensation. The Tribunal has held that the deceased was negligent and was responsible for the accident, but the Tribunal has wrongly awarded compensation in favour of the claimants. A judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2012 ACJ 1 is cited, wherein it is held that the driver who was at fault on account of his negligence, cannot claim compensation even under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The respondents 3 and 4 are not the dependants of the deceased and they are not entitled to any compensation. The award passed under various heads is excessive.

7. On the side of the appellant, it is further stated that the statement of the claimant that there was an engine fault that leads to the accident is wrong and that in Ex.P3, M.V. Report, it is clearly stated that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant would rely upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Su