The court emphasized the importance of assessing responsibility for accidents and the application of the multiplier method for determining loss of income in awarding compensation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree, made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.107 of 2017, dated 22.02.2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tenkasi.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.107 of 2017, dated 22.02.2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tenkasi. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the first respondent herein is the claimants and the respondents 2 & 3 herein are the respondents 1 and 3 in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.

2. A brief substance of the petition, in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.107 of 2017, is as follows:-

On 01.06.2013, when the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-76-J-1149 driven by his brother-Kumaresan along the Senkottai to Kutralam road, near Vivekananda Saw mill, keeping the left side of the road in a slow and cautious manner, a Van, bearing Registration No.TN-72-N-4453 was proceeding infront of the Motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and the driver suddenly applied the brake and stopped the vehicle, due to which, the motorcycle hit the rear side of the van, the petitioner and his brother – Kamaresan sustained injuries. The rider of the two wheeler-Kumaresan died on his way to the hospital. The petitioner was admitted in Thenkasi Government Hospital, then, he was taken to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital and he took treatment as inpatient for a period of 40 days, then, he took treatment Tiruvandram Sri Chitra Hospital as inpatient for a period of 20 days, then he was taking treatment as out patient. The petitioner was working as a driver in Fathima Lorry shed and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The petitioner was disabled. The first respondent vehicle was insured with the second respondent. The two wheeler was insured with the third respondent. The policies are effective. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation.

3. A brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent, in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.107 of 2017, is as follows:-

The owner of the two wheeler allowed a person who was not having valid driving licence to drive the two wheeler. It was the rider of the two wheeler who hit against the parked van. The van driver was not having valid driving licence. The age, income and profession of the petitioner are to be proved. The injuries are simple in nature and the mode of treatment is denied. The claim is excessive.

4. A brief substance of the counter filed by the third respondent, in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.107 of 2017, is as follows:

The claim is excessive. The rider of the two wheeler was not responsible for the accident. It was the van driver who was rash and negligent. No premium was paid for the pillion rider. The respondent is not liable to pay compensation.

5. Two (2) witnesses were examined and 24 documents were marked on the side of the petitioner. Two witnesses were examined and 1 document was marked on the side of the second respondent. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the third respondent. After considering both sides, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12,46,002/- as compensation, to be paid by the second respondent- insurance company on behalf of the first respondent. The third respondent was exonerated.

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

6.1. The Tribunal is wrong in deciding that the second respondent van driver was responsible for the accident. Even as per the F.I.R, the rider of the two wheeler-Kumaresan was rash and negligent and he only dashed against the rear side of the van. The