The court has the authority to modify the compensation awarded by the Tribunal based on the evidence and legal principles.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2019, made in M.C.O.P.No.723 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant / Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2019, made in M.C.O.P.No.723 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.723 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The respondents 1 to 4 / claimants filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Rani, who died in the accident that took place on 09.12.2015.

3. According to the respondents 1 to 4, on 09.12.2015 at about 10.30 a.m., while the deceased Rani was walking in the road at Basha Street, Choolaimedu from West to East direction near Shop No.27/13, the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 09 BL 0092, who was riding the motorcycle behind the said Rani, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Rani and caused the accident. In the accident, the said Rani sustained grievous injuries and died. Hence, the respondents 1 to 4 filed the claim petition claiming compensation against the 5th respondent and appellant, being the owner and insurer of the motorcycle respectively.

4. The 5th respondent – owner of the motorcycle remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5. The appellant-Insurance Company, filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 to 4 in the claim petition. The appellant denied the manner of accident as alleged by the respondents 1 to 4. The appellant denied the validity of vehicle records, driving license of the rider of the motorcycle and insurance coverage of the motorcycle at the time of accident. The insured willfully violated the policy condition by riding the vehicle without valid driving license to ride the two wheeler. Hence, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents 1 to 4. The respondents 1 to 4 are not entitled to any interest for the period of delay caused by them in furnishing the medical documents or disability certificate or any other documents. The respondents 1 to 4 have to prove that they are the dependants of the deceased. The appellant denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the respondents 1 to 4 is highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition as against the appellant.

6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1, one Mariyayi, eyewitness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and 22 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P22. The appellant examined one Anees Karimulla Khan, Manager of the appellant as R.W.1 and marked five documents as Exs.R1 to R5.

7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the rider of the motorcycle belonging to 5th respondent and directed the appellant, being the insurer of the motorcycle to pay a sum of Rs.25,30,000/- as compensation to the respondents 1 to 4 at the first instance and recover the same from the 5th respondent.

8. Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the award dated 26.08.2019, made in M.C.O.P.No.723 of 2016, the appellant has come out with the present appeal.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.25,30,000/- is excessive. In the absence of any proof with regard to avocation and income of the deceased, a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month fixed by the Tribunal as notional income of the deceased is excessive. The Tribun