The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of legal provisions and judgments related to compensation for accidents under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2020, made in M.C.O.P. No.281 of 2009, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chengalpattu.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2020, made in M.C.O.P. No.281 of 2009, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chengalpattu.

2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No.281 of 2009, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Chengalpattu. The respondents 2 to 5 along with the deceased Sagunthala filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one S.Venkatesan, who died in the accident that took place on 11.05.2009.

3. According to the respondents 2 to 5, on the date of accident, at about 6.45 p.m, when the deceased S.Venkatesan was riding his Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-07-AA-6525 along with his brother one Arumugam as a pillion rider, from Tiruporur to Saras, on ECR road, near Pooncheri Irular Kudiyiruppu opposite to Jayachitra Thottam, the driver of the Eicher Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-20-AK-4115, owned by the 1st respondent, drove the same from Pondichery to Chennai on the same road of ECR in a rash and negligent manner, without following the traffic rules, and dashed against the Motorcycle driven by the deceased and caused the accident. In the accident, the said S.Venkatesan sustained grievous injuries on the head and body, as a result, he died on the spot. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Eicher Lorry and hence, the respondents 2 to 5 along with the deceased Sakunthala filed the said claim petition, claiming compensation against the 1st respondent and appellant-Insurance Company as owner and insurer of the Eicher Lorry respectively.

4. The 1st respondent, owner of the Eicher Lorry, remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5. The appellant, insurer of the Eicher Lorry, filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 2 to 5 in the claim petition. According to the appellant-Insurance Company, the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding by the rider of the Motorcycle who drove the Motorcycle at high speed, hit against the Lorry and invited the accident. Hence, the appellant, insurer of the Eicher Lorry, is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents 2 to 5 and the claim petition has to be dismissed as against the appellant. In any event, the total compensation claimed by the respondents 2 to 5 is exorbitant and excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and Arumugam, eye-witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and three documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P3. The appellant did not let in any oral or documentary evidence.

7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence of respondents 2 to 5, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Eicher Lorry owned by the 1st respondent and directed the appellant-Insurance Company as well as the 1st respondent to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.20,80,000/- as compensation to the respondents 2 to 5.

8. Questioning the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 07.03.2020, made in M.C.O.P. No.281 of 2009, the appellant - Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the respondents 2 to 5 did not file any document to prove the avocation and income of the deceased. I