The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the driver of the TATA Sumo for the accident and the determination of compensation based on loss of dependency, medical expenses, and other factors.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.7198 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the dismissal order passed by the Tribunal in the award dated 26.02.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.7198 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2. The appellants are claimants in M.C.O.P.No.7198 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai. They filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one S.Jayaramaiah, who died in the accident that took place on 13.03.2015.

3. According to the appellants, on the date of accident i.e., on 13.03.2015, at about 5.15 a.m., while the deceased S.Jayaramaiah, husband of the 1st appellant and father of the appellants 2 & 3, was walking on Nagari to Puttur Main Road, Opposite to Old APSRTC Bus Stand, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh, the driver of the TATA Sumo bearing Registration No.TN-02-W-0005 belonging to the 1st respondent, insured with the 2nd respondent, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle bearing Registration No.AP-03-Y-1259 and also dashed against the said Jayaramaiah and caused the accident. Due to the said impact, the said Jayaramaiah was thrown out and sustained multiple injuries. He was given treatment in various hospitals and in spite of treatment, he died on 03.05.2015. According to the appellants, the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of TATA Sumo belonging to the 1st respondent, insured with the 2nd respondent and therefore, they filed the claim petition claiming compensation against the respondents.

4. The 1st respondent, owner of the TATA Sumo remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5. According to the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, the accident did not occur as alleged by the appellants. The driver of the TATA Sumo did not possess driving license at the time of accident. One motorcycle is also involved in the accident as alleged by the appellants. 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. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the appellants. In any event, the compensation claimed by the appellants is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st appellant, wife of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1, one C.Venkatesh, eye-witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2, one Murali Krishna, Junior Assistant, Southern Power Distribution Company, Tirupathi, was examined as P.W.3 and 31 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P31. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company did not let in any oral evidence and marked the copy of Pension Certificate through P.W.3 during cross-examination, as Ex.R1.

7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and other materials on record, dismissed the claim petition holding that the appellants have failed to establish their case by filing documents and the manner of accident as alleged by them was not proved.

8. Challenging the dismissal order passed by the Tribunal in the award dated 26.02.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.7198 of 2015, the appellants have come out with the present appeal.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the Tribunal erroneously rejected the evidence of P.W.2/eye-witness, relying on F.I.R. on the ground that the appellants did not file charge sheet, final report, accident register copy, rough sketch, Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report and driving license of the dr