The main legal point established in the judgment is the apportionment of negligence between the parties involved in the accident and the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2018, made in M.C.O.P.No.1898 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Tiruppur.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2018, made in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Tiruppur.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2018, made in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Tiruppur.)

Common Judgment"

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. C.M.A.No.2879 of 2018 has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the award dated 20.02.2018, made in M.C.O.P.No.1898 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Tiruppur.

2. C.M.A.No.2641 of 2019 has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company against the award dated 20.02.2018, made in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Tiruppur.

3. C.M.A.No.3163 of 2019 has been filed by the appellant-claimant challenging the 50% contributory negligence fixed on the part of the deceased and seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 20.02.2018, made in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Tiruppur.

4. C.M.A.Nos.2641 of 2019 & 3163 of 2019 arise out of the same award and C.M.A.No.2879 of 2018 arise out of different award. All the three appeals arise out of the same accident and hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

5. The parties are referred to as per their ranks in the respective claim petitions, for the sake of convenience.

6. The claimants in M.C.O.P.No.1898 of 2014 filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Shankar, who died in the accident that took place on 09.10.2014.

7. The claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1964 of 2014 filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.34,00,000/- as compensation for the death of her son Ramachandran, who died in the accident that took place on 09.10.2014.

8. According to claimants in both the M.C.O.Ps, on 09.10.2014 at about 09.30 P.M., while the deceased Shankar was riding the Yamaha Crux motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 39 AH 7705 along with the deceased Ramachandran as pillion rider from South to North direction on the Dharapuram – Tirupur road, near A.G.College, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN 01 X 2735, who was driving the lorry from the opposite direction, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle driven by the said Shankar and caused the accident. Due to the said impact, both the Shankar as well as Ramachandran were thrown on the road, sustained injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claimants filed the above said claim petitions claiming a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- & Rs.34,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the said Shankar and Ramachandran respectively, against the respondents who are the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry respectively.

9. The respondents 1 & 2, who are the driver and owner of the lorry remained exparte before the Tribunal in both the M.C.O.Ps.

10. The 3rd respondent – Insurance Company filed separate counter statement in both the M.C.O.Ps and commonly denied all the averments made by the claimants in the claim petitions. According to 3rd respondent, the lorry belonging to 2nd respondent was insured with them and the insurance period is from 11.03.2014 to 10.03.2015. The 3rd respondent denied the manner