JUDGMENT

(Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, praying this Court to set-aside the Judgment and decree in M.C.T.O.P.No.50 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court), Tenkasi, dated 12.12.2017.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment and decree in M.C.T.O.P.No.50 of 2017, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court), Tenkasi, dated 12.12.2017.

2. Challenging the quantum of liability fixed against the appellant by the learned Tribunal this appeal has been filed.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as ranked in the M.C.T.O.P.

4. The brief facts of the case in nutshell is as follows:

The first petitioner is the wife, the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the daughters, 4th petitioner is the widowed daughter-in-law and petitioners 5 and 6 are the grand daughters of the deceased one Kandasamy, who died on 26.09.2013. The said deceased was 58 years old at the time of accident. On 26.09.2013, at about 09.30a.m., on Kollam to Shencottah Main road, near Kandhapushpam wood shop, while the deceased was travelling as a passenger in Ape Auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No.TN 76 B 7531, a dog unexpectedly crossed the road, due to which, the auto driver applied the brake suddenly and lost his control over the Auto and the auto capsized on the roadside. In the said accident, the said Kandasamy sustained grievous injuries, following which, he was taken to Government Hospital, Shencottah for treatment. Later, he was referred to TVMC Hospital for further treatment. However, he died on the way to hospital. The Puliyarai Police has registered a case in Cr.No.78 of 2013 u/s.279, 337, 304(A) of IPC against the driver of the auto/1st respondent. The second respondent is the owner of the auto and the third respondent is the Insurance Company, with whom the second respondent has insured the auto bearing Reg.No.TN 76 B 7531.

5. Seeking to compensate for the death of the said Kandasamy, the petitioners have filed M.C.T.O.P.No. 50 of 2017 before the learned Tribunal, Tenkasi and the Tribunal was pleased to allow the said petition and passed an award of Rs.13,89,200/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit. Challenging the same, the third respondent has filed this Appeal.

6. The second respondent has filed a counter before the learned Tribunal and submitted that the first respondent, drove the auto slowly at the time of accident by following all the traffic rules and the accident had happened due to the unexpected crossing of dog in the road, therefore, the first respondent applied brake suddenly, as a result of which, the auto got capsized. However, without prejudice to the said defence, the second respondent submitted that the auto involved in the accident has been duly insured with the 3rd respondent Insurance Company. It is for the 3rd respondent to indemnify the same.

7. The 3rd respondent had filed a counter by rebutting every allegation set forth in the petition. Further, it was submitted that overload is the reason for capsizing. As per the Registration Certificate and permit, the auto can carry maximum of three passengers, apart from the driver. At the time of the accident, there were seven persons travelling the said auto rickshaw. The overload is the reason for the auto to capsize on the roadside. It amounts to violation of policy condition. Hence, the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. The petitioners have to prove that they are the dependents of the deceased Kandasamy. The claim made under various heads are very high and exorbitant.

8. While adjudicating, the petitioners have claimed Rs.25 lakhs. The learned Tribunal has examined PW1 to PW3 on the side of the petitioner and marked