The determination of compensation in motor vehicle accident cases should be based on accurate assessment of the deceased's income and application of relevant legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

V.M. VELUMANI, J.

PRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No. 3128 of 2018, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants challenging 50% contributory negligence fixed on the part of the deceased and for enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 04.11.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No. 3128 of 2018, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P. No. 3128 of 2018, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai. They filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one K. Vettriselvan, who died in the accident that took place on 27.02.2018.

3. According to appellants, on 27.02.2018 at about 23.00 hours while the deceased K. Vettriselvan was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN-11-L-1750 from North to South direction at Tambaram Maduravoil By Pass near Thiruneer Malai, Jain Apartments, the driver of the container lorry bearing Registration No. TN-04-AH-7530, who was proceeding ahead of the motorcycle driven by the said K. Vettriselvan, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied brake and stopped the lorry without any indication. At that time, the said K. Vettriselvan, who was riding the motorcycle behind the lorry, due to unavoidable circumstances dashed against the lorry, sustained head injuries and died. Hence, the appellants filed the said claim petition claiming compensation against the respondents, being the owner and insurer of the lorry respectively.

4. The 1st respondent, owner of the container lorry remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

5. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, insurer of the container lorry filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the appellants in the claim petition. The 2nd respondent denied the manner of accident as alleged by the appellants in the claim petition. According to 2nd respondent, the driver of the container lorry was driving the vehicle cautiously from North to South direction at Tambaram Maduravoil Bypass near Thiruneer Malai, Jain Apartments. At that time, the deceased who was riding the motorcycle on the same direction, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit against the rear side of the lorry and invited the accident. Apart from FIR, rough sketch, Mahazar and 161 statement by the Police confirms that the deceased only caused the accident and the deceased alone was responsible for the accident. Though PW-2/eyewitness was examined on the side of the appellants, the said evidence is not acceptable. PW-2 admitted that at the time of accident several vehicles were coming behind the lorry but the deceased only dashed against the lorry. Had the driver of the lorry applied sudden brake, other vehicles also dashed against the lorry. Hence, it is clear that the driver of the lorry did not apply sudden brake. PW-2 is not the person who has given any statement to the Police and his name is not found in any of the criminal records. Hence, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. The appellants are entitled to only a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under no fault liability. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the appellants are excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st appellant examined herself as PW-1, one P. Mathiyazhagan, eyewitness to the accident was examined as PW-2, one V. Ranganathan, employer of th