The main legal point established is the application of negligence principles and the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, based on the evidence presented and relevant legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.2241 of 2016, on the file of the Special Sub Court No.1, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Salem.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.2241 of 2016, on the file of the Special Sub Court No.1, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Salem.

2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No.2241 of 2016, on the file of the Special Sub Court No.1, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Salem. The 1st respondent/claimant filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 10.07.2016.

3. According to the 1st respondent, on the date of accident, at about 9.30 a.m, when he was riding as a pillion rider in a Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-39-BC-0724 owned by the 2nd respondent, on the Tharapuram to Sangarandampalayam road, near Alampalayam Alangkattu Thottam, the rider of the Motorcycle rode the same in a rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules of the road, lost control and hit against the road barrier and caused the accident. In the accident, the 1st respondent sustained multiple grievous injuries all over his body. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the Motorcycle owned by the 2nd respondent 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 Motorcycle respectively.

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

5. The appellant, insurer of the Motorcycle, filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the 1st respondent in the claim petition, including involvement of the 1st respondent in the alleged accident. According to the appellant-Insurance Company, as per the sketch prepared by the Police, the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent riding by rider of the Motorcycle without following traffic rules. The injuries sustained by the 1st respondent is not due to the alleged accident. The accident took place on 10.04.2016, as alleged by the 1st respondent, while the FIR was lodged belatedly only on 13.04.2016. From the Accident Register of G.H., Dharapuram, it is seen that at the time of accident, the 1st respondent had breath smell of alcohol. The accident occurred only due to the negligent act of the 1st respondent. Hence, for the negligent act of the 1st respondent, the appellant as insurer of the said Motorcycle is not liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent. In any event, the 1st respondent has to prove his age, avocation and income, treatment taken, injuries sustained and medical expenses incurred to claim compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8. The appellant did not let in any oral and documentary evidence. Two documents were marked as Exs.C1 & C2.

7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent riding by rider of the Motorcycle and directed the appellant as insurer of the said vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.24,64,021/- as compensation to the 1st respondent.

8. Against the said award of the Tribunal dated 10.12.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.2241 of 2016, 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 erred in holding that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding by rider of the Motorcycle owned by the 2nd respondent. As per the FIR lodged by the f