IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that accurate assessment of income and dependency is crucial in determining compensation in motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

R. Sakthivel, J.

[PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the award dated 20.02.2018 in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.215 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / II Additional District Judge, Puducherry.]

Dissatisfied with the Award dated February 20, 2018, passed by the 'Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / II Additional District Judge, Puducherry' [henceforth 'Tribunal'] in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.215 of 2016, the petitioners therein have filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal praying to enhance the award amount awarded by the Tribunal.

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

Petitioners' case

3. On January 17, 2016, at about 08.45 p.m., the first petitioner's son namely Murali, was travelling as a pillion rider in the Hero Honda Passion Pro motorcycle bearing Registration No.PY-01-CG-1955 driven by one Ajith from Manaveli Road, Ariyankuppam Police Station, Puducherry. While they were crossing the Puducherry to Cuddalore Main Road from east to west direction, the first respondent's Yamaha Ray motorcycle bearing Registration No.PY-01-CJ-5976 driven by one Mathankumar with two pillion riders was approaching from north to south direction, in a rash and negligent manner. It collided with the motorcycle on which Murali was travelling leading to an accident and thereby, Murali sustained injuries and died. The first petitioner is the deceased - Murali's mother while the second and third petitioners are siblings of the deceased - Murali.

3.1. According to the petitioners, prior to the accident, the deceased - Murali was working as a Car Tinkerer and thereby, earned a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. The first respondent is the owner of the Yamaha Ray motorcycle bearing Registration No.PY-01-CJ-5976. The second respondent is the insurer of the first respondent's motorcycle. The rider of the first respondent's motorcycle is responsible for the accident. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners had filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondents before the Tribunal.

1st Respondent's case

4. The first respondent, who is the owner of the Yamaha Ray motorcycle bearing Registration No.PY-01-CJ-5976, remained absent and was set ex-parte before the Tribunal.

2nd Respondent's case

5. The second respondent / Insurance Company filed a counter wherein, they denied the manner of accident as alleged by the appellants / petitioners. According to the second respondent, the deceased - Murali was riding the motorcycle in an inebriated mood with two other pillion riders and suddenly crossed the road in a rash and negligent manner, thus inviting the accident. Furthermore, the first respondent also violated the policy conditions. Hence, the second respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and the first respondent alone is responsible for compensation, if any awarded. The second respondent also denied the age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. At trial, the third petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and the rider of the motorcycle, namely Ajith @ Manigandan was examined as P.W.2 and one Balachandar, the alleged employer of the deceased - Murali was examined as P.W.3 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.12 were marked on the side of the petitioners. Further, Ex-X.1 – Salary Certificate was marked through P.W.3. On the side of the respondents, three witnesses were examined as R.W.1 to R.W.3. and Ex-R.1 – Insurance Policy was marked.

Findings of the Tribunal

7. The Tribunal after considering the evidence and materials available on record, came to the conclusion that the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. PY-01-CJ-5976 belonging to the first respondent was responsible for the accident. Since the first respondent's vehicle was insured