JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the fair and decreetal order dated 19.12.2017 made in MCOP.No.416 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Additional District Judge), Madurai.

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the fair and decreetal order dated 19.12.2017 made in MCOP.No.416 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Additional District Judge), Madurai.)

Common Judgment

R. Subramanian, J. & N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. Challenge in these two appeals is by the two insurance companies to the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madurai, granting a sum of Rs.1,05,52,621/- as compensation, for the death of one Jessie John in a motor accident that occurred on 28.07.2010.

2. The claimants are the husband and children of the deceased. The claim of the claimants is that the 1st respondent/1st claimant who is a Doctor by profession, is practicing medicine in Canada. The respondents 2 and 3/claimants 2 and 3 who are the children of the deceased, are studying in Canada. The deceased was a graduate in Botany. She was working in the medical institution of her husband namely, Thomas John Medicine Professional Corporation, Canada, as a Manager and was earning 50,000/- U.S dollars annually. She was also a shareholder of the said Corporation and was getting an annual dividend income of 75,000/- U.S dollars. During July 2010, when the family had come to India for vacation, they had travelled to Trivandrum by hiring an Innova Car bearing registration No.TN-45-AL-3435 belonging to the 3rd respondent in the claim petition. On their way back from Trivandrum, on 28.07.2010, when they were nearing Kuthiraisalai Vilakku on Thirumangalam four-way road, a Lorry bearing registration No.TN-29-AF-1901 going ahead of the Car, took a sudden turn to right without any signal and it being a 21 feet long Taurus Lorry with 10 wheels, occupied the entire stretch of the road. The driver of the Car despite his best efforts could not stop the Car and the Car dashed in the middle portion of the Lorry. As a result of the collision, all the occupants of the Car were injured. They were admitted to the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai. The wife of the 1st respondent/1st claimant namely, Jessie John succumbed to the injuries at the Hospital. The claimants, therefore, sought a sum of Rs.60 Lakhs as compensation. In view of the involvement of the two vehicles in the accident, the respective owners and the insurers of the vehicles, were impleaded as respondents 1 to 4 in the claim petition.

3. While the owners of the vehicles involved in the accident remained ex parte, the insurers resisted the claim. The 2nd respondent in the claim petition/insurer of the Lorry resisted the claim, contending that there was no negligence on the part of the Lorry driver. It was the Car driver who drove the Car in an uncontrollable speed, came from behind and dashed against the Lorry. Therefore, according to the insurer of the Lorry, the Car driver alone is responsible for the accident. The income claimed and the quantum of compensation were termed as excessive. The insurer of the Car/4th respondent in the claim petition, contended that the Lorry took a sudden turn from the extreme left towards the right and because of the length of the vehicle which is about 21 feet and the fact that it is a 10 wheeled Taurus Lorry, it covered the entire road leaving no space for the Car to move. The Car which was coming from behind, was travelling at a good speed and therefore, despite the best efforts of the driver, it could not be stopped resulting in the collision.

4. At trial, before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/1st claimant was examined as PW1. Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. The driver of the Lorry and the Senior Assistant in the insurance company/2nd respondent in the claim petition, were examined as RW1 and RW2. Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. Exs.C1 to C3 were marked as Court docume