The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act in determining compensation for accidents involving negligence.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.04.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.3583 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Small Causes Court, Chennai.)

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

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award dated 27.04.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.3583 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2. The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.3583 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Small Causes Court, Chennai. They filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of their son viz., M.Jegan, who died in the accident that took place on 22.07.2012.

3. According to appellants, on 22.07.2012 at about 22.15 hours, while their son M.Jegan was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 07 BQ 8987 from South to North at the East Coast Road, Injambakkam Kebab Hotel, Kanchipuram, the driver of the car bearing Registration No.TDG 2692, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner endangering public safety and tried to overtake the motorcycle, suddenly applied brake and due to the same, both the vehicles hit the side body, as a result, the rider of the motorcycle could not able to control the motorcycle and hit behind the car and thus the accident occurred. Due to the said impact, the said M.Jegan fell down on the road, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the appellants being the parents of the said M.Jegan have filed the above said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of their son against the respondents, being the owner and insurer of the car respectively.

4. The 1st respondent-owner of the car filed counter statement and contended that the deceased only drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, came from behind and dashed on the car and invited the accident. The F.I.R. was also registered against the deceased only. Therefore, the deceased was only responsible for the accident. The car belonging to 1st respondent was insured with the 2nd respondent on the date of accident. The quantum of compensation claimed by the appellants are highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition as against the 1st respondent.

5. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, being the insurer of the car filed separate counter statement and denied all the allegations made by the appellants in the claim petition. According to the 2nd respondent, the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent riding by the deceased without observing the traffic rules. The F.I.R. is also registered only against the deceased and hence, the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is liable to be dismissed. The accident has not occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car. Further, the driver of the car was not possessing valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. Hence, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the appellants. The 2nd respondent denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. The quantum of compensation claimed by the appellants are highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st appellant examined herself as P.W.1, the 2nd appellant examined himself as P.W.2 and one Saminathan, eyewitness to the accident was examined as P.W.3 and five documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P5. On behalf of the respondents, one R.Muthuselvi, Junior Assistant, RTO was examined as R.W.1, one N.Sampathkumar, Sub Inspector of Police was examined as R.W.2 and four documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R4.

7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appell