IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that negligence in driving leading to an accident warrants compensation, and the multiplier method is a valid approach for calculating damages.

JUDGMENT :

(R. Sakthivel, J.) :

(Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.04.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.321 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Special Judge) at Krishnagiri praying to set aside the same.)

Dissatisfied with Award dated April 28, 2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.321 of 2010 on the file of 'Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Special Judge), Krishnagiri' [henceforth 'Tribunal'], the second respondent / appellant has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will henceforth be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.

Petitioner's case

3. The case of the petitioner is that on September 25, 2007 at about 19.30 hours, the petitioner, was riding Suzuki Motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA29-E-5077 along with his friend-Bakash as pillion rider, from Hosur to Pedda Sigarlapalli. While they were nearing Perandapalli Bus Stop, the driver of the Cargo Lorry bearing Registration No.TN72-Z-9272 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, who was driving the Lorry in a rash and negligent manner without blowing the horn and without observing the rules of the road. He suddenly applied brakes and stopped the Lorry in front of the petitioner's Motorcycle without any signal or indication. The petitioner could not anticipate that the Lorry would be suddenly stopped in the middle of the road. The petitioner's motorcycle collided with the back of the Lorry and the petitioner sustained fracture and multiple injuries. Immediately, the petitioner was taken to Government Hospital, Hosur and then he was referred to NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore for further treatment. The NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore referred the petitioner to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore as the injuries were severe in nature. The petitioner was admitted in Victoria Hospital, Bangalore where he underwent a surgery on September 26, 2007. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the first respondent Lorry in Crime No.337 of 2007 under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. According to the petitioner, he was engaged in the Mango and Tamarind business and thereby, earned a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month. Hence, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, the petitioner had filed the Claim Petition.

First Respondent's Case

4. Despite service of notice, the first respondent – owner of the lorry did not choose to contest the case. Hence, he was set ex-parte by the Tribunal.

Second Respondent's case

5. The second respondent – Insurance Company filed counter counter wherein it is averred that the lorry was parked at the extreme end of the road earmarked for parking at Perandapalli with its parking lights on. While the Driver went to have a cup of tea, the petitioner rode his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and crashing into the back of the stationed lorry and thereby, caused the accident. The accident happened due to the rash and negligent riding of the petitioner and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation. An First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the Driver of the first respondent's Lorry four days after the date of the accident and the Police, after investigation, the Police concluded that the accident as alleged by the petitioner was false and accordingly, closed the FIR as a 'mistake of fact'. The petitioner had no Driving License, no Registration Certificate (R.C.), no Permit for his motorcycle and not an insurance policy. The injuries sustained by the petitioner are simple in nature. Accordingly, the second respondent–Insurance Company prayed to dismiss the original petition.

Exhibits

6. At trial, on the side of the petitioner, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.7 were marked. One Dr.K.A.Kandasamy was examined as P.W.2 and Ex-P.8 was marked through him. Dr.M.Devendiran was examined as P.W.3 and