The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability for the accident and the assessment of just and fair compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No. 689 of 2017, dated 25.11.2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Special District Judge), Trichy.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.689 of 2017, dated 25.11.2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Special District Judge), Trichy.

2. The Insurance Company is the appellant herein challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.689 of 2017, on the ground of quantum of compensation and negligence.

3. The respondents 1 to 4 herein, have filed a claim petition claiming compensation for the death of one Balu.After trial, a sum of Rs.9,02,800/- is awarded. Aggrieved against the same, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appelant/Insurance Company would contend that due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of both the driver, the accident had taken place and hence, the Tribunal has committed an error in fixing the liability on the driver of the insured vehicle alone. Further, the quantum awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, according to them.

5. As per the pleadings and evidence of P.W.1 regarding the manner of the accident on 23.5.2017, the deceased Balu was standing near Seethai Pillai colony bus stop and at that time, a motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN 45 BA 0747 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased Balu, who was standing on the extreme left side of the road. The deceased Balu sustained injuries all over the body and he was taken to the Government Hospital, Trichy by Ambulance and wherein, he was admitted and he was died.

6. As per the Insurance Company, the deceased Balu was coming from East to West direction in his two wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 45 BK 2767 in a hectic speed without observing the other vehicles in the main road which is running north south and suddenly crossed the road. The deceased Balu has lost his control over his vehicle and dashed it on the first respondent's motor cycle in the middle of the road. Had he drove the vehicle carefully, the accident could not have been occurred. Actually, the first respondent drove the vehicle adhearing the traffic rules at normal speed. Furthermore, the first respondent, on seeing the deceased suddenly crossing the road, stop the vehicle. Inspite of it, the deceased dashed against the stationed vehicle and fell down, since he lost his control over his vehicle and relied on 2019(1) TN MAC 495(The National Insurance CompanyLimited, Salem – 636 601 .vs. Illayaraj and others) and prayed to fix the contributory negligence at 50:50%.

7. P.W.2 is the occurrence witness and the claim petitioners have marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and on the side of the respondent R.W. 1 is examined and no document has been marked and third party documents Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were marked. EXX1-Rough Sketch prepared by the Police after the accident and Ex.X2 is the observation Mahazar.

8. P.W.2 occurrence in his witness stated that the accident was happened when the deceased was crossing the road from Ikbal colony to Head Post Office.Ex.P1 is the copy of the FIR registered against the driver of the first respondent. R.W.1 is the Special Inspector of Police attached with Trichy South Traffic Investigation Wing. Through him, the copy of the rough sketch prepared by the Investigation officer was marked as Ex.X1 and the copy of the Observing Mahazar was marked as Ex.X2. On perusal of Ex.X1, the accident was happened and the place of occurrence is noted at nearby the center median. The place of occurrence is four way junction. R.W.1 stated in his evidence that the person who caused the accident was overtaking the holding bus on the left hand side and caused the accident. As per R.W.1, the driver of the first respondent who drove the motor cycle has caused the accident. On perusal of the available ev