The main legal point established in the judgment is the confirmation of liability and quantum of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 05.03.2022 passed in MCOP No.862 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Special District Court], Krishnagiri.)

Insurance Company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, on the point of negligence and quantum.

2. The claims tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.55,04,500/. The appellant-Insurance company has admitted the liability to the tune of Rs.33,02,700/- and disputed the liability to the extent of Rs.22,01,800/- and with interest it comes to Rs.24,32,084/-. Hence, the matter was posted before this Court, after satisfying the pecuniary jurisdiction.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their ranking before the claims tribunal.

4. The factum of the accident is admitted. However, the manner of the accident and rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle is disputed. The quantum of compensation award by the claims tribunal, is also challenged.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4/claim petitioners.

6. The 1st petitioner, both in the claim petition as well as, as PW1 has categorically stated that her husband was driving the Hyundai i10 car in a moderate speed on the left hand side of the road and the offending vehicle Hyundai Santro came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Hyundai i10 car, in which the 1st petitioner-s husband died and hence, the MCOP. She relied upon Ex.P1 to P4.

7. As stated supra, in the counter filed by the insurance company of the Hyundai Santro Car (offending vehicle), denied the manner of the accident.

8. On the side of the claim petitioners, 1st petitioner-Bhuvaneswari was examined as PW1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P14, were marked. PW2, is the eyewitness, who travelled along with the deceased at the time of the accident. On behalf of the claim petitioners, Inspector, Income Tax Ward-I, Hosur, was examined as PW3 and marked Ex.P15 to Ex.P19. On the side of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, Special Sub Inspector of Gurabarapalli Police Station was examined as RW1 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R5, were marked.

9. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, this Court finds that the vehicles involved in the accident are Hyundai Santro Car bearing Regn.No.KA-05-MC-1125 and Hyundai Car bearing Regn.No.KA-51-MC-6496 and the death of one Shanmugam, S/o.Murugan in the accident are all admitted by the 1st and 2nd respondents.

10. The 1st petitioner examined herself as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. The insurance company has filed the counter denying the alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle viz., Hyundai Santro car. It remains to be stated that one of the drivers involved in the car is the deceased and another car driver is the driver of the 1st respondent car and he was not examined. The co-passenger with the deceased was examined as PW2. Ex.P1-FIR, Ex.P2-Postmortem Certificate, Ex.P3-Insurance Policy of 1st respondent-s vehicle and Ex.P4-Motor Vehicle Inspector-s report of 1st respondent-s vehicle, goes to show that the driver of the 1st respondent was rash and negligent and the accident has taken place only due to his negligence.

11. Though on Court summons, the appellant-Insurance Company (2nd respondent before the tribunal), examined RW1-Special Sub Inspector of Police, in view of the answer elicited in the cross examination, this Court finds that

“On a reading of the evidence of RW1, coupled with Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and from the fair admission is rendered by the RW1 during the course of cross examination, it is proved that the occurrence not had been happened in the middle of the road and the occurrence had been taken place on the extreme left side of the road that too it is ear marked in the Rough Sketch. And from the Final Report a