The court upheld the compensation amount and directed the appellant-Insurance Company to deposit the award amount with interest, based on the determination of negligence and the notional income of the deceased.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2021, made in M.C.O.P.No.248 of 2021, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagapattinam.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant / Insurance Company Limited against the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2021, made in M.C.O.P.No.248 of 2021, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagapattinam.

2. Originally the respondents 1 & 2 filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.243 of 2020 before the Sessions Court, Nagapattinam, claiming a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one G.Gunasekaran, who died in the accident that took place on 15.12.2019. The same was taken on file on 05.09.2020. Thereafter, the said M.C.O.P.No.243 of 2020 was transferred to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagapattinam and re-numbered as M.C.O.P.No.248 of 2021 and taken on file on 23.11.2021. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.248 of 2021.

3. According to the respondents 1 & 2, on 15.12.2019 at about 11.00 A.M., while the deceased G.Gunasekaran was returning home after dropping his mother, the 1st respondent herein at the Majakollai Kamatchi Amman Temple by riding the Honda Dio motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 51 AF 7102 from West to East direction near Manjakollai Kannara street Arch, the driver of the Chozha private bus bearing Registration No.TN 51 H 6752 belonging to 3rd respondent, drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner from East to West, dashed on the motorcycle driven by the said G.Gunasekaran and caused the accident. In the accident the said G.Gunasekaran sustained injuries in the left fore head, left chest, left hand and left thigh. Immediately after the accident the said G.Gunasekaran was taken to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nagapattinam for first aid treatment. Thereafter, he was taken to Thiruvarur Government Medical College and Hospital, Thiruvarur for further treatment. Inspite of medical treatment, the said G.Gunasekaran succumbed to injuries on the same day. Hence, the respondents 1 & 2 filed the claim petition against the 3rd respondent and appellant, being the owner and insurer of the bus respectively.

4. The 3rd respondent – owner of the bus remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5. The appellant being the insurer of the bus belonging to 3rd respondent filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 & 2 in the claim petition. The appellant denied the manner of accident as well as the involvement of 3rd respondent's bus in the accident as alleged by the respondents 1 & 2. At the time of accident, the driver of the bus belonging to 3rd respondent did not possess valid driving license to drive the bus. The 3rd respondent violated the policy conditions by allowing a person without possessing driving license to drive the bus, which had no valid permit and Fitness Certificate. The accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. At the time of accident, the bus belonging to 3rd respondent was not covered with valid insurance policy. Hence, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents 1 & 2. In any event, the respondents 1 & 2 are not entitled to any interest for the delay period caused by them in furnishing the medical documents or any other documents. The quantum of compensation claimed by the respondents 1 & 2 are excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition as against the appellant.

6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined herself as P.W.1, one Siva, eyewitness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and 20 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P20. The appellant di