The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of negligence in a motor accident case and the modification of compensation based on the evidence presented.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2021, made in M.C.O.P.No.609 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Perambalur.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant / United India Insurance Company Limited against the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2021, made in M.C.O.P.No.609 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Perambalur.

2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.609 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Perambalur. The respondents 1 to 5/claimants filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Chandrasekaran who died in the accident that took place on 11.05.2013.

3. According to the respondents 1 to 5, on 11.05.2013 the deceased Chandrasekaran was travelling as Additional Driver in the lorry bearing Registration No.TN 45 AF 1782 belonging to 7th respondent and insured with 8th respondent on the GST Road towards Chennai. At about 08.30P.M., while the lorry was proceeding opposite to Sri Ram Hotel, Kannapiranpuram, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN 31 E 7899 belonging to 6th respondent and insured with appellant, who was proceeding ahead of the 7th respondent's lorry at hectic and uncontrollable speed, without giving any caution, without blowing horn, without obeying any traffic rules and regulations, suddenly applied brakes and stopped the lorry on the road. Due to the said act of the driver of the lorry belonging to 6th respondent, the right backside body of the lorry belonging to 6th respondent was dashed on the left front side of the lorry belonging to 7th respondent and caused the accident. In the accident, the said Chandrasekaran sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body and immediately after the accident, he was taken to Government Hospital, Chengalpattu, where first aid treatment was given and thereafter he was admitted at Government Hospital, Chennai. Inspite of medical treatment, the said Chandrasekaran succumbed to injuries on 13.05.2013. Hence, the respondents 1 to 5 filed the claim petition against the respondents 6 to 8 and appellant.

4. The 6th respondent – owner of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN 31 E 7899 remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5. The appellant being the insurer of the lorry belonging to 6th respondent filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 to 5 in the claim petition. The appellant denied the manner of accident as alleged by the respondents 1 to 5. According to the appellant, no driver would stop the lorry as alleged by the respondents 1 to 5. The red light signal would be automatic while applying brake of the lorry. Had the driver of the lorry belonging to 7th respondent drove the same maintaining reasonable distance, the accident could have been avoided. In fact, the driver of the lorry belonging to 7th respondent attempted to overtake the lorry belonging to 6th respondent in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Further, it is evident from the Accident Register that the deceased accidentally fell down from the lorry. Therefore, it is clear that the accident has occurred only due to the negligent driving by the driver of the lorry owned by 7th respondent. The respondents 1 to 5 have to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased to claim compensation. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the respondents 1 to 5 are excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition as against the appellant.

6. The 7th respondent – owner of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN 45 AF 1782 filed separate counter statement and denied the manner