The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the annual income threshold of Rs.40,000 for claims under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the principle that claimants cannot alter their case to seek compensation under different grounds.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Decree and Judgement dated 08.08.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.255 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Decree and Judgement dated 08.08.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.256 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.)

Common Judgement

1.The two appeals emanate from a single accident involving the rider and the pillion rider of TVS Star two wheeler bearing registration No.TN 20 AB 9054. Though a common Judgement is being pronounced, the facts of each case is herein below extracted separately.

C.M.A.No.626 of 2017:

2. C.M.A.No.626 of 2017 is filed challenging the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.255 of 2008. This petition is filed by the legal representatives of one Mugunthan, who was 27 years old at the time of his death and was working as a Tiles Fitter Mason. Originally this claim petition was filed under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter called the Act. The monthly income was shown as a sum of Rs.10,000/- and a total compensation of Rs.17,50,000/- was claimed, which was however restricted to a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-.

3. When the claim petition was initially filed the narration was as follows:

“On 18.06.2007 at about 8.30 P.M., the petitioner proceeding his two wheeler TVS Star bearing registration No.TN 20 AB 9054 with pillion rider one Mr.Ganesh from Pannur to Maduravoyal while nearing Paramount Hotel at Sriperumputhur bye pass road the the 1st respondent lorry bearing reg. no.TN 30 J 3958, parking middle of the road as a result, the rider of the bike Mugunthan died on the spot and pillion rider sustained grievous injuries”.

4. Thereafter, the claim petition was amended as one under Section 166 of the Act. As per second amendment in I.A.No.1421 of 2010, by order dated 03.12.2010, the restriction of the claim amount was deleted. Thereafter, the case that the accident was the result of the lorry reversing and hitting the deceased Mugunthan was introduced.

5. Once again it appears that there has been an amendment and the claim petition was once again converted as one under Section 163 A and the monthly income reduced to a sum of Rs.3,330/-. The petitioners are the wife, child and the mother of the deceased Mugunthan.

C.M.A.No.1040 of 2019

6. C.M.A.No.1040 of 2019 is filed challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.256 of 2008. This claim petition is filed by the pillion rider, Ganesh. He would contend that he was aged about 26 years and is also employed as Tiles Fitter Mason and the monthly income was shown as Rs.10,000/-. Even in this claim petition the original narration of the accident was that the deceased Mugunthan, rider of the bike dashed against the lorry which parked on the edge of the mud portion of the road. The compensation claimed was a sum of Rs.3,35,000/-, restricted to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.

7. The 2nd respondent / Insurance Company alone had filed a counter, in which they would contend that as regards Claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.255 of 2008, the deceased himself was a tortfeasor and he was driving the vehicle without a valid driving licence and Insurance. It is also stated that the deceased Mugunthan was under the influence of alcohol and hit the vehicle parked on the mud portion of the road, which had its parking lights on. The Insurance Company would also submit that it was the deceased who was prosecuted by the Police under Section 304 A of the IPC.

8. An additional counter has also been filed by the Insurance Company, in which they would submit that the claim was not maintainable. They would submit that in the FIR lodged by one J.Jenson, an eye witness who claims that he was driving another motor cycle along side the deceased and that the lorry was parked on the left h