JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.01.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.364 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Additional District Court, Bhavani.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award dated 29.01.2018 made in M.C.O.P. No. 364 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Additional District Court, Bhavani.

2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.364 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Additional District Court, Bhavani. The claimants/respondents 1 and 2 have filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the death of their son namely Ganapathy, who died in the accident that took place on 30.05.2014.

3. According to claimants/respondents 1 and 2, on 30.05.2014 at about 07.00 p.m., the deceased Ganapathy drove the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-33-X-6100 on Erode to Karur Road from West to East. While he was coming near Ariyangkattu Bridge, the first respondent in the claim petition (3rd respondent herein) drove the car bearing Registration No.TN-33-BB-8001 in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite side and dashed against the deceased due to which he sustained multiple injuries and died on spot. Thus, it is claimed that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the 3rd respondent herein. In connection with the accident, the Modakurichi police registered a case in Crime No.95 of 2014, under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC against the third respondent herein. According to the claimants/respondents 1 and 2, the deceased was aged 24 years at the time of accident, engaged himself as Building contractor and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. On the death of the deceased, the respondents 1 and 2 have lost their only son and bread-winner in their family. Therefore, the claimants/respondents 1 and 2 have filed the said claim petition against the 3rd respondent herein and appellant-Insurance Company, being the owner and insurer of the car respectively.

4. The 3rd respondent-owner of the car remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5. The appellant-Insurance Company, insurer of the car filed counter statement stating that the deceased Ganapathy was not having valid driving licence, R.C, Tax, Insurance policy for the two-wheeler at the time of accident. The owner of the two-wheeler is one Sankar. He handed over the possession of the vehicle to the deceased Ganapathy, thus, the provision of motor vehicles are violated. The complaint was given by one Karthik before the Modakurichi police station based on which the case was registered against the third respondent herein. According to the Insurance company, the deceased Ganapathy over took the lorry, crossed the white line and dashed against the car which was coming from the opposite side. Thus, it was stated that the deceased contributed to the accident wholly and hence, the appellant/Insurane Company is not liable to pay compensation. The insurance company also denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased. It is also stated that the compensation claimed is high and excessive. Therefore, the Insurance Company prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent-mother of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1, one Karthik was examined as P.W.2 and 9 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9. The appellant-Insurance Company examined one Mr.M.Selvakumar as R.W.1 and Mr.Muthukumaran (Assistant Manager) as R.W.2 and marked 5 documents as Exs.R1 to R5.

7. 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 car belonging to 3rd respondent herein and directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.7,62,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 and 2.

8. Against the