The judgment establishes the principle that negligent driving leading to a fatal accident can result in liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the common judgment and decree dated 09.12.2020, made in M.C.O.P. Nos.1046 & 1062 of 2015, on the file of the III additional District and Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tiruppur at Dharapuram.)

Common Judgment:

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company against the common judgment and decree dated 09.12.2020, made in M.C.O.P. Nos.1046 & 1062 of 2015, on the file of the III additional District and Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tiruppur at Dharapuram.

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

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in their claim petitions.

4. The appellant is the 3rd respondent in M.C.O.P. Nos.1046 & 1062 of 2015, on the file of the III additional District and Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tiruppur at Dharapuram. The claimants in M.C.O.P.No.1046 of 2015 filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one S.Anbarasu, who died in the accident that took place on 13.08.2015 and claimants in M.C.O.P.No.1062 of 2015 filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one A.Shanthi, who died in the same accident.

5. According to the claimants, on the date of accident, at about 3.00 p.m, when the deceased S.Anbarasu was riding a Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-51-L-5774 along with the deceased A.Shanthi in pillion towards East on the Northern edge of Karur to Trichy road near Pariyur Over Bridge in a moderate speed, the 1st respondent/driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-47-AV-2661 owned by 2nd respondent who was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner in front of the Motorcycle, applied sudden brake, without any sign or signal or indication and caused obstruction on the road. Due to the said impact, the rider of the motorcycle / S.Anbarasu dashed on the rear portion of the Lorry and thus, the accident occurred. In the accident, both S.Anbarasu and A.Shanthi were thrown out from the Motorcycle and sustained fatal injuries all over their bodies. The accident occurred only due to the negligent act of the 1st respondent, driver of the Lorry. Hence, the claimants in both the claim petitions filed the said claim petitions, claiming compensation against the respondents 1 to 3 as driver, owner and insurer of the Lorry respectively.

6. The respondents 1 and 2, remained exparte before the Tribunal.

7. The 3rd respondent, insurer of the Lorry, filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the claimants in both the claim petitions. According to the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company, at the time of accident, the 1st respondent drove the Lorry with utmost care and caution. The deceased S.Anbarasu only rode the Motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner behind the Lorry and hit on the back portion of the Lorry and invited the accident. For the negligent act of the rider of the Motorcycle, the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. The claimants have to prove that the insurance policy for the Lorry was in force at the time of accident and 1st respondent as well as the deceased rider of the Motorcycle possessed valid driving license to drive their respective vehicles at the time of accident. The claimants also have to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased persons to claim compensation. In any event, the total compensation claimed by the claimants are excessive and prayed for dismissal of both the claim petitions.

8. Before the Tribunal, the 1st claimant in both the claim petitions examined himself as P.W.1, examined one Vaithiyanathan, eye-witness to the accident as P.W.2 and one Rajkumar Amuthan, employer of the deceas