The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability in a motor accident case, including contributory negligence and the calculation of compensation under different heads.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2021, made in M.C.O.P. No.807 of 2019, on the file of the Special District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Krishnagiri.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company to set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2021, made in M.C.O.P. No.807 of 2019, on the file of the Special District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Krishnagiri.

2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No.807 of 2019, on the file of the Special District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Krishnagiri. The respondents 1 and 2/claimants filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Dinesh Babu who died in the accident that took place on 15.04.2018.

3. According to the respondents 1 and 2, on the date of accident, the deceased Dinesh Babu was returning from Ambur to go to Bangalore in a Motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-05-KJ-0573, slowly and carefully, observing all the rules of the road. At about 22.30 hours, while he was proceeding in Krishnagiri to Hosur National Highways road, infront of Old RTO office flyover bridge, the driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-52-T-3839 owned by the 3rd respondent who was driving behind the Motorcycle of the deceased without observing any rules of the road in a rash and negligent manner, drove the same in high speed, without making any horn sound, lost control and hit behind the Motorcycle and caused the accident. In the accident, the said Dinesh Babu sustained fatal injuries and died in the Apollo Hospital, Bangalore on 24.04.2018. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Lorry owned by the 3rd respondent and hence, the respondents 1 and 2 filed the said claim petition claiming compensation against the 3rd respondent and appellant-Insurance Company as owner and insurer of the Lorry respectively.

4. The 3rd respondent, owner of the Lorry, remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5. The appellant, insurer of the Lorry, filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition. According to the appellant-Insurance Company, on the date of accident, the driver of the Lorry was driving the vehicle slowly and cautiously in the flyover bridge leading to Bangalore. The deceased Dinesh Babu who was riding the Motorcycle from Ambur to go to Bangalore was already tired as he was driving for more than 4 hours on the same day. The deceased after finishing his work, again started on the same day from Ambur to reach Bangalore. Hence due to extreme tiredness, he lost control of his vehicle, deviated from his path, came to the middle of the road and invited the accident. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent riding by the deceased Dinesh Babu. Moreover, the driver of the Lorry did not possess valid and effective driving license to ply the vehicle at the time of accident. Hence, for such breach of policy conditions, the appellant as insurer of the said Lorry is not liable to indemnify the 3rd respondent. In any event, the respondents 1 and 2 have to prove the age, avocation and income, Income Tax paid by the deceased Dinesh Babu to claim compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined herself as P.W.1, one Syed Mansoor, Employer of the deceased was examined as P.W.2, one Sekar, eye-witness to the accident was examined as P.W.3 and 18 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P18. 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 due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the Lorry owned by the 3rd respondent and fixed 10% contributory negligence on the part of the decea