The court emphasized the importance of medical evidence and previous decisions in determining the cause of the accident and the quantum of compensation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2017 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1528 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Tirunelveli.)

1. The Insurance Company is the appellant herein. The respondents 1 to 4 who are the legal heirs of the deceased Dhanalakshmi, have filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub- Court, Tirunelveli in M.C.O.P.No.1528 of 2015 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) for the death of one Dhanalakshmi in the road accident taken place on 10.02.2015.

2. The appellant/second respondent/Insurance Company has filed a counter affidavit before the Tribunal alleging that the accident had taken place only due to the contributary negligence of the rider of the two wheeler, namely, the decased and also contended that she had not died due to the accidental injuries.

3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of petitioner, the husband of the deceased/first petitioner was examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined Dr.Arunagiri and Dr.Ramanathapandian as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively and 17 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P17. On behalf of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.

4. Taking into consideration the evidence avilable on record, the Tribunal has held that the accident has taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, which was insured with the appellant herein and based upon the medical evidence, the Tribunal held that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident and awarded a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the respondents 1 to 3/claimants. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the United India Insurance Company has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the medical evidence dose not support the contention of the claim petitioners that the injured deceased died only due to the accidental injuries and further contended that the rate of interest is 7.5% per annum only and decides conventional heads and therefore, are not in accordance with law as per the decision laid down in National Insurance Co. vs Pranay sethi and others reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 601.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 44 years and she was working as a Staff Nurse and hence, the fixation of the notional income of the deceased is erroneous and prayed that even before there being any cross objection or cross appeal for enhancement of compensation by the claimants, the Court can suo motu enhance the compensation subject to the payment of Court fee.

7. Heard both sides and perused the materials avilable on record.

8. The manner of the accident is described as under:-

On 10.02.2015, at about 04.00 pm., the deceased was riding a TVS Scooty Pep bearing Registration No.TN-05-W-3002 on the Tirunelveli- Tiruchendur main road, near Kumarapuram Maveeran Nagar Vilakku towards west on the left side of the road and at that time, a TVS Apache bearing Registration No.TN-22-BK-3135 belonging to the first respondent insured with the second respondent came from just behind the deeased motorcycle in a high speed and hit against the rear portion of the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased was thrown out of the motorcylce and fell down on the road and sustained serious head injuries besides multiple injuries all over the body.

9. It is the specific evidence of P.W.1 that while the deceased, namely, Dhanalakshmi was riding her two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-05-W-3002, a vehicle insured with the appellant/Insurance Company came from the just behind the motorcyc