The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove negligence in a claim for accident compensation 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 03.11.2020, made in M.C.O.P.No.74 of 2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants / claimants challenging the dismissal order passed by the Tribunal in the award dated 03.11.2020, made in M.C.O.P.No.74 of 2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem.

2. The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.74 of 2019, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Salem. They filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one P.Mohanraj, who died in the accident that took place on 22.04.2018.

3. According to the appellants, on 22.04.2018 at about 13.45 hours while the deceased P.Mohanraj was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 90 B 6400 on the Vellalakundam – Veppilaipatty road near Arasamaram bus stop, the rider of the two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 54 C 5784, who was riding the two wheeler from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed against the motorcycle driven by the said P.Mohanraj and caused the accident. In the accident, the said P.Mohanraj died on the spot and immediately he was taken to Government MKMC Hospital, Salem for postmortem. Therefore, the appellants filed the above said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation against the respondents, being the owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 54 C 5784 and the insurer of the motorcycle driven by the deceased respectively.

4. The 1st respondent, being the owner of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 54 C 5784 remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5. The 2nd respondent-insurer of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 54 C 5784 filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the appellants in the claim petition. This respondent denied the manner of accident as alleged by the appellants. According to 2nd respondent, the deceased P.Mohanraj was riding the motorcycle without wearing helmet from Vellalakundam – Veppilaipatty road at high speed without following any traffic rules and while nearing Arasamaram bus stop, he lost control and dashed against the two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 54 C 5784 which was coming from the opposite direction and invited the accident. In the accident, the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 54 C 5784 died on the spot. The F.I.R. was registered against the deceased P.Mohanraj by the Inspector of Police, Valappady Police Station in Cr.No.128 of 2018. The accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased P.Mohanraj and he is the tort feasor. Therefore, the appellants can claim compensation only against the 3rd respondent, who is the insurer of the motorcycle driven by the deceased. As per the final report, the case was treated as charges abated and hence, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the appellants. The appellants have to prove that the deceased was possessing valid driving license to drive the motorcycle on the date of accident. Further, the appellants have to prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased. The 2nd respondent denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. The quantum of compensation claimed by the appellants are highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition as against the 2nd respondent.

6. The 3rd respondent-insurer of the motorcycle driven by the deceased filed separate counter statement and denied all the averments made by the appellants in the claim petition. The appellants have to prove the manner of accident and that the said P.Mohanraj died in the accident that occurred on 22.04.2018. The appellants have stated in th