The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Section 173, in determining the compensation for a motor accident.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree, made in M.C.O.P.No.123 of 2016, dated 18.09.2018, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Karur.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.123 of 2016, dated 18.09.2018, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Karur. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the respondents 1 & 2 herein are the claimants and the third respondent herein is the first respondent in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.

2. A brief substance of the petition, in M.C.O.P.No.123 of 2016, is as follows:-

On 17.10.2015, at about 6.15 pm, when the deceased-Kalimuthu was riding a moped bearing Registration No.TN-33-AY-5173 along the Karur- Dharapuram main road, near Aravankadu Thottam, a mini Truck bearing Registration No.TN-47-U-5008 came in a rash and negligent manner from behind the deceased and dashed against the motorcycle. He was taken to Government Hospital, Aravakurichi, there he was declared dead. The deceased was doing weaving business and he was earning Rs.25,000/-per month. He was doing agriculture and he was earning Rs.35,000/-through agriculture and milk business. The petitioners are his dependants and they claim a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation.

3. A brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.123 of 2016, is as follows:-

The age, occupation and income of the deceased are all false. The income is exaggerated. The driver of the Truck was drove the vehicle in a slow and careful manner, it was the deceased, who drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly turned to the right side and he invited the accident. The deceased was 67 years old and he could not have engaged himself in somany business activities. The Truck driver was not having valid driving licence. The first respondent violated the policy conditions and hence, the second respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The manner of accident as narrated in the petition is wrong. The first respondent driver drove the vehicle in a slow and cautious manner. It was the petitioner, who tried to cross the road in a negligent manner and he invited the accident. The treatment particulars are all denied. The age and education of the petitioner are all denied. The claim is excessive.

4. Two (2) witnesses were examined and 18 documents were marked on the side of the petitioner. Two (2) witnesses were examined and 5 documents were marked on the side of the respondents. After considering both sides, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 11,20,020/- as compensation.

5. Against the award, the appellant- Insurance Company has filed this Appeal on the following grounds:-

The Tribunal has failed to consider the age of the deceased. Without any documentary proof, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income as Rs.25,000/-, which is excessive. The total compensation is excessive.

6. Copy of the F.I.R was marked as Ex.P1. Copy of M.V.I. reports were marked as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. Copy of rough sketch was marked as Ex.P4. Copy of the charge sheet was marked as Ex.P6. P.W.2 was examined as an eye witness, has deposed that the Truck hit the motorcycle from the backside. The appellant is admitting a portion in the quantum of compensation, hence, it is decided that the liability fixed by the Tribunal is reasonable.

 7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is excessive. On the side of the respondents 1 & 2 - claimants, it is stated that the deceased was doing weaving business and the wage vouchers for weaving work were marked as Ex.P7 and P8.

8. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the deceased was having agricultura