The main legal point established in the judgment is the joint and several liability of the appellant and the insurance company to pay the compensation for the accident.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.181 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Additional District Court, Thiruvallur at Ponneri.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant, owner of the vehicle, challenging the portion of the award ordering pay and recovery, passed by the Tribunal dated 30.11.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.181 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Additional District Court, Thiruvallur at Ponneri.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/Insurance Company and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 and perused the entire materials on record.

3. The appellant, owner of the vehicle is the 1st respondent in M.C.O.P.No.181 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Additional District Court, Thiruvallur at Ponneri. The respondents 2 to 4 along with one N.Manonmani and J.Natarajan filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.80 lakhs as compensation for the death of one Saravanan, who died in the accident that took place on 05.07.2012. Pending claim petition, the said Manonmani and Natarajan, who are parents of the deceased Saravanan died.

4. According to the respondents 2 to 4, on the date of accident i.e., on 05.07.2012 at 4.40 P.M., while the deceased Saravanan was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-20-BA-4509 from Uthukottai to Thiruvallur, Opposite to Meera Theatre, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-20-BD-6262 belonging to the appellant, who was coming in the same direction, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle and caused the accident. In the accident, the said Saravanan died on the way to hospital. Therefore, the respondents 2 to 4 along with parents of the deceased have filed the above claim petition claiming compensation against the appellant, owner of the lorry and 1st respondent/Insurance Company, insurer of the said lorry.

5. The appellant, owner of the lorry remained exparte before the Tribunal.

6. The 1st respondent/Insurance Company insurer of the lorry filed counter statement denying the averments made by the respondents 2 to 4 and stated that since the accident has occurred due to collision of two vehicles, contributory negligence has to be fixed on the part of the deceased Saravanan. The driver of the lorry belonging to the appellant does not possess valid driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, the 1st respondent/Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents 2 to 4. The 1st respondent/Insurance Company has also denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In any event, the compensation claimed by the respondents 2 to 4 is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

7. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent, wife of the deceased Saravanan examined herself as P.W.1, one Ashogan, eye-witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and 9 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9. The 1st respondent/Insurance Company examined the Assistant Manager (legal) of the Insurance Company as R.W.1 and marked the copies of driving license of the driver of the lorry and Insurance policy of the lorry as Exs.R1 and R2.

8. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of lorry belonging to the appellant and directed the 1st respondent/Insurance Company being the insurer of the said lorry to pay a sum of Rs.22,26,569/- as compensation to the respondents 2 to 4, at the first instance and recover the same from the appellant/owner of the lorry, as the driver of the lorry did not possess driving license at the time of accident.

9. Challenging the portion of award