The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability for a motor accident based on the negligence of the drivers involved and the assessment of compensation for injuries sustained.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2021, made in M.C.O.P. No.121 of 2019, on the file of the Special Sub Court (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tirupattur.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2021, made in M.C.O.P. No.121 of 2019, on the file of the Special Sub Court (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tirupattur.

2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No.121 of 2019, on the file of the Special Sub Court (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tirupattur. The 1st respondent/claimant filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 17.01.2019.

3. According to the 1st respondent, on the date of accident, at about 8.40 a.m, when he was riding a Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-23- BM-4222 from Chennai to Pondicherry slowly and cautiously observing all the traffic rules of the road, with sounding horn, keeping to the extreme left side of the road, near ECR, opposite to Vadanemili Darga, a Toyota Car bearing Registration No.TN-11-AD-1800 owned by the 2nd respondent, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without observing any traffic rules with high speed and while overtaking the Motorcycle driven by the 1st respondent, suddenly applied brake. Due to the said impact, the Motorcycle dashed on the Car and thus, the accident has occurred. In the accident, the 1st respondent sustained grievous injuries and fractures. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Car and hence, the 1st respondent filed the said claim petition claiming compensation against the 2nd respondent and appellant-Insurance Company as owner and insurer of the Car respectively.

4. The 2nd respondent, owner of the Car, remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5. The appellant, insurer of the Car, filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the 1st respondent in the claim petition. According to the appellant-Insurance Company, at the time of accident, the 1st respondent was riding his Motorcycle on his left side and the said Car was coming behind him. When the Car overtook the Motorcycle and turned to its right side after slowing down with signaling both electronic and hand signal, the 1st respondent who was coming on his Motorcycle in high speed lost the control of the vehicle and hit the Car on sides and fell down, sustaining injuries. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the 1st respondent/rider of the Motorcycle. It is evident from the contents in the FIR that the 1st respondent was negligent in causing the accident. The claim petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the Motorcycle. The 1st respondent has to prove the injuries sustained, disability suffered, loss of income suffered and his avocation and income to claim compensation. In any event, the total compensation claimed by the 1st respondent is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and marked 20 documents as Exs.P1 to P20. The appellant did not let in any oral and documentary evidence.

7.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Car, owned by the 2nd respondent and directed the appellant as insurer of the said vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.24,62,825/- as compensation to the 1st respondent.

8. Against the said award of the Tribunal dated 16.12.2021, made in M.C.O.P. No.121 of 2019, the appellant - Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the accident occurred when the 1st respondent/Motorcyclist