The sufficiency of evidence and the principles of compensation for loss of dependency were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.4255 of 2016, on the file of the II Special Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Small Causes Court, Chennai.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.4255 of 2016, on the file of the II Special Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Small Causes Court, Chennai.)

Common Judgment

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. C.M.A.No.1971 of 2020 has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 25.09.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.4255 of 2016, on the file of the II Special Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Small Causes Court, Chennai. C.M.A.No.1752 of 2021 has been filed by the appellants-claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 25.09.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.4255 of 2016, on the file of the II Special Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2. Both the appeals arise out of same accident and same award and hence, disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The parties are referred to as per their ranks in the claim petition, for the sake of convenience.

4. The claimants filed M.C.O.P. No.4255 of 2016, on the file of the II Special Sub Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Small Causes Court, Chennai, claiming a sum of Rs.99,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Manoharan who died in the accident that took place on 01.07.2014.

5. According to the claimants, on the date of accident, at about 22.15 hours, when the deceased Manoharan was travelling as a passenger in Volkswagen Polo Car bearing Registration No.TN-22-CU-7221 from Thiruthani to Chennai direction at Pattarai Perumbudur Bus Stop, the 1st respondent, driver-cum-owner of a TATA Ace Van bearing Registration No.TN-20-CA-9198, who was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, came at a dangerous speed from Tiruvallur to Thiruthani direction and dashed against the Volkswagen Polo Car and caused the accident. In the accident, the said Manoharan sustained fatal injuries. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Ace Van by the 1st respondent and hence, the claimants filed the claim petition claiming compensation for the death of Manoharan, against the respondents who are the owner-cumdriver and insurer of the said Tata Ace Van respectively.

6. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the claimants. According to the 2nd respondent, the claimants have to prove that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the 1st respondent, driver-cum-owner of the Tata Ace Van and the 1st respondent possessed valid driving license to ply the vehicle at the time of accident. In any event, the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the Car in which the deceased Manoharan travelled as a passenger. The claimants also have to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased to claim compensation. The total compensation claimed by the claimants are excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

7. Before the Tribunal, the 1st claimant examined herself as P.W.1, examined one Ravichandran, eye-witness to the accident as P.W.2 and marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company did not let in any oral or documentary evidence.

8. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the 1st respondent, driver-cum-owner of the Tata Ace Van and directed the 2nd respondent, as insurer of the said vehicle, to pay a sum