JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to enhance the award amount by allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals against the order dated 24.03.2021 in M.C.O.P.Nos.462 and 468 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Pudukkottai.)

Common Judgment:

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed, seeking enhancement of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Pudukkottai, in M.C.O.P.Nos.462 and 468 of 2018, dated 24.03.2021. Since the present appeals had arisen out of a common issue, these appeals are taken up together for final disposal by way of this common judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are as follows:

When the deceased persons were travelling in a TVS Star City two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-55-P-1830 in Trichy to Pudukkottai road, the Maruthi Indica Car bearing registration No.TH-55-AH-0619, which was proceeding in the same direction, dashed against the two wheeler, hence, the rider and the pillion riders of the two wheeler were thrown out of the vehicle. As a result, one Saravanan @ Saravanakumar and Manikandan died on the spot and one Veerapandi was taken to the hospital and succumbed to injuries.

4. It is the case of the respondents before the Tribunal that the first respondent drove the vehicle in a cautious manner. In spite of the driver of the car blew horn, the rider of the two wheeler did not leave the way to the car to go ahead of it. The accident did not take place by the rash and negligent driving of the car. Since there were two pillion riders in the motorcycle, the rider of the two wheeler lost his control and fell down on his own.

5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, four witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.25 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidence were marked.

6. The Tribunal, in both the claim petitions, after perusing the oral and documentary evidence fixed 80% liability on the part of the first respondent and 20% liability on the part of the rider and pillion riders of the two wheeler and awarded a sum of Rs.10,07,200/-, (Rupees Ten Lakhs Seven Thousand and Two Hundred Only) as compensation.

7. Not satisfying with the said compensation, the claimants have filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals on the ground that the monthly income adopted by the Tribunal at Rs.7,500/- is very meager and the same has to be enhanced. Further, the Tribunal had erred in fixing 20% of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased persons.

8. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that carrying three persons in a two wheeler itself is a violation. That apart, the rider and the pillion riders had not worn helmet. Hence, the negligence fixed on the part of the rider of the two wheeler does not require any interference. Further, the Tribunal considering the factual aspects, had rightly fixed the monthly income of the deceased persons at Rs.7,500/-. Hence, prays for dismissal of these appeals.

9. In view of the above submissions, now the point arise for consideration in this appeal is:

Whether the tribunal was right in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- and contributory negligence at 20% on the part of the deceased persons and 80% on the part of the first respondent/rider of the car?

10. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

11. The deceased along with two others were proceeding in a motorcycle, at that time the accident had taken place. This aspect had not been disputed. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for th