The main legal point established is the consideration of contributory negligence in fatal accidents and the applicability of Section 163(A) and Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 29.08.2016 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1792 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Tiruchirappalli.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant Insurance Company against the Judgment and decree dated 29.08.2016 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1792 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Tiruchirappalli, challenging the quantum as well as the liability fixed on the Insurance Company

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

3. The brief facts in a nutshell are as follows

(i) This is a fatal case. The 4th petitioner is the wife of the deceased. The petitioners 1 to 3 are the minor children of the deceased. The deceased Anbazhagan was employed as a driver under the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent is the Insurance Company in which the vehicle involved in the accident was insured. On 05.06.2012 at about 3.30 P.M., the husband of the 4th petitioner namely Anbazhagan drove a mini tanker lorry bearing registration No.TN 45 AS 4823 belonging to 1st respondent in Trichy - Chennai national highways from south to north. While the vehicle reached near Nedungoor milestone, the deceased applied sudden break thereby a mini tanker lorry hit against the center median and capsized on the right side. As a result of which, the said Anbazhagan sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot itself. At the time of the accident, the deceased was about 36 years old. Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased have filed M.C.O.P.No.1792 of 2013 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Tiruchirappalli, seeking compensation for the loss of life of the deceased Anbazhagan

(ii) The 2nd respondent had filed a counter refuting the allegations putforth in the claim petition. It was pleaded in the said counter that the accident happened only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased himself. He was the tort feasor of the crime. Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased not entitled to file a claim petition for seeking compensation.

(iii) Two issues were framed by the learned Tribunal. Following which three witnesses were examined, i.e., the wife of the deceased was examined as PW-1, the company mechanic who travelled along with deceased at the time of the accident was examined as PW-2, , that is, the eye witness, the Branch manager of 1st respondent concrete company was examined as PW-3 and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 were marked on the side of the petitioners in which Ex.P-1 is the True copy of FIR, Ex.P-2 is the True copy of the postmortem certificate, Ex.P-3 is the legal heir certificate, Ex.P-4 is the 1st respondent's R.C. Book copy, Ex.P-5 is the 1st respondent's Insurance policy copy, Ex.P-6 is the driving license copy of the deceased. Three witnesses were examined, i.e., Perambalur RTO Office, Junior Assistant was examined as RW-1, S.I. Of Police Siruganur was examined as RW-2, Officer of the 2nd respondent was examined as RW-3 and Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 were marked on the side of the respondents in which Ex.R-1 is the Insurance policy copy, Ex.R-2 is the Investigation report, Ex.R-3 is the Advocate notice sent to 1st respondent, Ex.R-4 is the served acknowledgment card and court documents Ex.X-1 to Ex.X-7 were marked in which Ex.X-1 is the Authorisation letter, Ex.X-2 copy of staff attendance register, Ex.X-3 is the salary certificate, Ex.X-4 is the salary register copy, Ex.X-5 is the RTO, Office Perambalur letter dt 24.06.2014, Ex.-6 is the RTO, Office perambalur letter dt 24.06.2014, Ex.X-7 is the series Siruganur P.S.Cr.No.113/2012 C.D.file.

(iv) From the evidence of the eye witness