The court upheld the principle of contributory negligence and confirmed the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.1886 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Tiruppur.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.1886 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Tiruppur.

2. The appellant/Insurance Company is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.1886 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Tiruppur. The 1st respondent representing through natural guardian and his wife S.Nithiya Priyanga, filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 02.07.2018.

3. According to the 1st respondent, on the date of accident i.e., on 02.07.2018 at about 5.15 P.M., while he was riding his Discover motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-41-AQ-8507 on Coimbatore to Pollachi Main Road, near Kandha Mahal, from North to South direction, the 2nd respondent, rider-cum-owner of Fascino two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-41-AS- 8447, rode the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle driven by the 1st respondent and caused the accident. In the accident, the 1st respondent sustained head injury and grievous injuries all over the body. Therefore, the 1st respondent has filed the above claim petition claiming compensation against the 2nd respondent, rider-cum-owner of the offending two wheeler and appellant/Insurance Company, insurer of the said two wheeler.

4. The 2nd respondent, rider-cum-owner of offending two wheeler remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5. The appellant/Insurance Company filed counter statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the appellant has not received any particulars from the 1st respondent such as FIR copy, policy and driving license. The accident has occurred only due to negligence of the 1st respondent, rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-41-AQ-8507. The owner and insurer of the said motorcycle are not made as parties and hence, the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. At the time of accident, the 1st respondent did not wear helmet, which is in violation of statutory provisions. Therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the 1st respondent. In any event, the amount claimed by him is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined his wife S.Nithya Priyanga as P.W.1, one Ahamed Meeran, co-worker of the 1st respondent was examined as P.W.2 and 13 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P13. The appellant/Insurance Company did not let in any oral and documentary evidence. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board is marked as the Court document, Ex.X1.

7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding by the 2nd respondent, rider-cum-owner of the offending two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-41-AS-8447 and directed the appellant/Insurance Company being the insurer of the said vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.39,87,957/- as compensation to the 1st respondent.

8. Against the said award dated 30.04.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.1886 of 2018, the appellant/Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal failed to conduct an impartial inquiry. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are not eye-witnesses to the accident. The 1st respondent did not examine any eye-witness. The accident has occurred i