The main legal point established is that the insurance policy only covers statutory liability and not the occupants of the car, leading to the exoneration of the insurance company.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and decree, dated 22.10.2016 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1229 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and decree, dated 22.10.2016 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1230 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.)

1. Both the appeals have been filed by national insurance company limited challenging a common award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli in M.C.O.P.No.1229 and 1230 of 2014 primarily on the ground of liability.

2. One Mr.Kanagaraj and his wife Karpagavalli were travelling as passengers in a Tata Safari car at 04.30 a.m on 27.05.2013. While the car was reaching Sivarakottai near Thirumangalam, it dashed on the rear side of a parked Ashok Layland lorry. In the said accident, Kanagaraj had passed away and his wife, namely Karpagavalli sustained grievous injuries. Seeking compensation for the death of Kanagaraj, M.C.O.P.No. 1229 of 2014 was filed by his wife Karpagavalli and mother Rajathi. Karpagavalli as injured claimant had filed M.C.O.P.No.1230 of 2014 seeking compensation.

3. According to the claimants in both the cases, the driver of the car had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the rear side of a lorry, which was parked in violation of the traffic regulations. They have further contended that the accident has happened due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car as well as the lorry. According to the claimants, Kanagaraj was a vegetable vendor and he was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. The wife Karpagavalli also claimed that she is a vegetable vendor and her monthly income is Rs.10,000/- per month. For the death of Kanagaraj, a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was sought as compensation by the wife and mother. For the injuries sustained by Karpagavalli, she prayed for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. The owner and driver of the car and the lorry have remained ex parte.

4. The insurance company of the car had filed a counter contending that the car is insured with them and the insurance policy is only an Act Policy. Therefore, the policy does not cover the occupants of the private car. They have also questioned the quantum of compensation prayed for by the claimants.

5. The tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on either side, has arrived at a finding that the lorry has been parked in the middle of a four way road without any parking lights. Therefore, the driver of the lorry was also responsible for the said accident. The tribunal further found that the car driver had dashed against the parked vehicle. Consequently, the tribunal apportioned 60% of contributory negligence on the driver of the car and 40% of contributory negligence on the driver of the lorry. The tribunal has also relied upon a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2015 (1) TNMAC 801 (Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., & Others) to point out that the apportionment of the liability between the respondents is not for the purpose of execution. Therefore, both the insurance companies are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award.

6. The tribunal after taking into consideration that the deceased was working abroad for nearly 3 years, fixed the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month and deducted 50% towards his personal expenses and added 50% towards his future prospects. Ultimately, the tribunal arrived at a sum of Rs.14,40,000/- towards loss of income. The tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as loss of consortium to the wife and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the