The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurance company under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and the modification of compensation based on legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Cross Objection has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2019, in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.97 of 2016, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Hosur. Cross objection Appearance)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and cross objection arise out of an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Hosur (hereinafter, referred to as ''the Tribunal'') in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.97 of 2016, dated 07.08.2019.

2.On 09.03.2014, at 19.45 hours, Harish (since deceased) was riding the two wheeler, bearing Regn.No.TN-24-K-7494, in Kelamangalam and Cross. Obj. No.22 of 2022 to Rayakottai Road along with one Minor, Ajith Kumar as pillion rider and when the said Vehicle was nearing Erudhalam, the rider of the two wheeler, viz., Hero Honda Splendor, bearing Regn.No.TN-70-K-1885, belonging to the first respondent/owner and insured with the second respondent came in a rash and reckless manner, dashed against the deceased''s Vehicle and thus, caused the accident. Due to the accident, both Harish and pillion rider, Ajith Kumar sustained grievious injury and despite treatment, the deceased died in the Hospital.

3.At the time of the accident, the deceased was a Student, aged about 18 years and was studying +2 in a Government School. Apart from his studies, he was also assisting his father, in Milk Vending Business and earning a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month. Hence, the claimants, being parents of the deceased, made a claim in a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-/- as compensation against the owner of the offending vehicle, first respondent as well as the insurer of the offending vehicle, second respondent.

4. The owner of the offending Vehicle remained absent before the Tribunal, and hence, he was set ex parte. And

5.The second respondent/Insurance Company, Chennai contested the claim petition by filing a counter statement, inter alia disputing their liability on the ground that the deceased was a minor, and without possessing driving licence, he rode the vehicle, in a hurried manner, at an uncontrollable speed, without observing observing the traffic rules, and in an attempt to overtake the another vehicle, he hit against the Hero Honda Splendor, which resulted in the accident. Therefore, it is contended that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent act of the deceased, for which, second respondent cannot be mulcted with any liability and hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition with costs.

6.Before the Tribunal, the father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and Pillion Driver, named Ajith Kumar, was examined as P.W.2 and eight documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.8. On the side of the Insurance Company, a person named Latha was examined as R.W.1, and two documents were marked as Exs.R.1 and R.2 and

7.The Tribunal, on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence has come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the rider of vehicle, viz., Hero Honda Splendour, bearing Registration No.TN-70-K-1885 belonging to the first respondent, insured with the second respondent, and therefore, directed the second respondent/Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants, and then, to recover the same from the first respondent. By coming to such a conclusion, the Tribunal has made calculation under different heads and passed an award for a total sum of Rs.15,77,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition (i.e. 30.06.2014) till the date of realisation, as compensation.

7.1 The break up details of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal are as follows:-