IMPORTANT POINT
The absence of a fitness certificate for a vehicle involved in a road accident can absolve the Insurance Company of its liability, constituting a fundamental statutory infraction under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

R. Subramanian, J.

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2023 made in MCOP.No.1625 of 2016 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirupuur.)

1. The Municipality, which is the owner of the offending lorry is on appeal, aggrieved by the award of a sum of Rs.16,96,000/- for the death of one Murugesh @ Murugesan in a road accident that took place on 04.08.2016 at about 1.45 p.m.

2. The sole claimant, who is the paternal grandmother of the deceased sought for a compensation for the death of the said Murugesan contending that the parents of the deceased had pre-deceased him and she has been declared as the legal heir of the deceased in O.S.No.35 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kodumudi vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.2017. She had also contended that she was depending on the deceased, he being the only earning member in the family. The claim for compensation was quantified at Rs.45,00,000/- and the same was justified by claiming that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- through his avocation as a Company labour.

3. Narrating as to how the accident occurred the claimant submitted that on 04.08.2016 at about 1.45 p.m, when the deceased Murugesan was travelling as a pillion rider in the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-47-W-1924 in front of Kasipalayam, Sri Karupparayan Kovil, from the North to South direction, the Municipal lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-39-AJ-5278 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit against the two-wheeler, in which the deceased was travelling. As a result of the impact, the deceased was thrown off the vehicle and he died instantaneously.

4. The Municipality resisted the claim contending that the accident did not occur in the manner suggested by the claimant and the deceased was responsible for the accident. It was the case of the Municipality that the lorry was parked for loading the garbage, the deceased drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry from behind.

5. The Insurance Company apart from resisting the claim on merits, contended that since the lorry in question which was insured with it did not have a valid fitness certificate, it ought not to have been on the road, therefore in view of Section 39 read with Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, there being a statutory violation of the policy condition, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable.

6. The Tribunal rejected the claim of the Municipality on negligence and held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry. It based its conclusion on negligence on the FIR, charge sheet, the observation magazar and rough sketch, which were marked as Exs.P1 to P4. The Tribunal dis-believed the evidence of RW2, the driver of the lorry.

7. On the liability of the Insurance Company, the Tribunal concluded that since this vehicle did not have a fitness certificate, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. On the said conclusion while exonerating the Insurance Company, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.16,96,200/- adopting the notional income at Rs.11,000/-, adding 40% towards future prospects, deducting one half towards his personal expenses and awarding a sum of Rs.33,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate at Rs.16,500/- under each heads. Thus, the total compensation was awarded at Rs.16,96,200/-. Aggrieved, the Municipality is on appeal.

8. We have heard Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.S.P.Chockalingam, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.

9. Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Municipality would vehemently contend that the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive, inasmuch as the Tribunal has assumed the notional income at Rs.11,000/- per month f