The court emphasized the importance of evidence and legal principles in determining liability and compensation in motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the decree and judgment passed in M.A.C.T O.P.No.920 of 2019 dated 30.03.2023 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 3rd Additional District Court, Coimbatore.)

M. Sundar, J.

1. Captioned main 'Civil Miscellaneous Appeal' [hereinafter 'CMA' for the sake of brevity] has been filed in this Court on 30.10.2023.

2. Captioned CMA is a Statutory Appeal under Section 173 of 'the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988' [hereinafter 'MV Act' for the sake of brevity].

3. Short facts [shorn of elaboration and particulars not imperative for appreciating this order] are that a young veterinary doctor i.e., Dr.B.Karthik was riding a two wheeler on 21.02.2019 at about 11.30pm in the night near Thiyaga Perumanallur, Vilamal Bus Stand in Tiruvarur District; that the 28 year old young veterinary doctor was riding a motor cycle bearing registration No.TN 40 Q 3666; that a truck bearing registration No.TN 49 AB 1454 coming in the opposite direction and driven by one A.Loganathan, first respondent before 'Motor Accident Claims Tribunal' i.e., 'MACT' for the sake of brevity and third respondent before this Court collided with the two wheeler and Dr.Karthik sustained severe injuries; that he was rushed to Tiruvarur Government Medical Hospital; that he unfortunately died the next day i.e., he succumbed to the injuries; that pertaining to this road accident, Tiruvarur police registered a case against A.Loganathan vide Crime No.79 of 2019, initially under Sections 279 and 337 of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and it was later altered to Sections 279 and 304 (A) of IPC; that father and mother of late Dr.Karthik arraying themselves as 1st and 2nd claimants respectively filed a claim inter alia under Section 166 (1)(c) of MV Act seeking compensation of one crore; that this claim was filed in III Additional District Court, Coimbatore which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'said MACT' for the sake of brevity. This claim is vide M.C.O.P.No.920 of 2019 on the file of said MACT; that in said MACT, driver of the truck A.Loganathan was arrayed as first respondent and the Insurance Company which had insured the truck was arrayed as third respondent; that after full contest, said MACT in and by an 'award dated 30.03.2023 in M.C.O.P.No.920 of 2019' [hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] awarded a compensation of a little over 56 lakhs [56,16,900 INR to be precise] as against one Crore claim; that Insurance company [third respondent before said MACT] is in appeal before us.

4. Ms.N.B.Surekha, learned counsel on record for the appellant Insurance Company [to be noted, captioned CMA is listed in the Admission Board today] notwithstanding very many grounds raised in the memorandum of grounds of appeal, predicated her campaign against the impugned award on the following points:

i) deceased Late Karthik was under the influence of alcohol at the time of road accident and therefore, said MACT ought not to have granted compensation;

ii) a rough sketch depicting the accident was marked as Ex.P5 before said MACT and this rough sketch shows that the truck did not err but late Dr.Karthik had erred by riding on the wrong side of the road; iii) said MACT fell in error in fixing the monthly salary of Late Dr.Karthik at Rs.40,000/-.

5. Before we proceed further, it is to be noted that Mr.C.Veeraraghavan, learned counsel for the claimants / Respondents 1 and 2 is before us on the 'videoconferencing' ['VC' for the sake of brevity] platform. It is also to be noted that Ms.N.B.Surekha, learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company is in physical court. It is further to be noted that this is a hybrid hearing which is a daily / routine feature in this Court.

6. While Mr.C.Veeraraghavan, learned counsel submitted that he had lodged a caveat, learned coun