The court affirmed the Tribunal's findings on negligence and compensation calculation, emphasizing the lack of evidence for contributory negligence and the appropriateness of the awarded amount.

JUDGMENT :

(Judgment of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.)

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award dated July 31, 2023 passed in M.C.O.P.No.640 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Special Sub Judge No.II (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award dated July 31, 2023 passed in M.C.O.P.No.640 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Special Sub Judge No.II (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are arising out of the ‘Award dated July 31, 2023, passed in M.C.O.P.No.640 of 2018' ['impugned Award' for short] by the 'Special Sub Judge – II (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Court of Small Causes, Chennai' ['Tribunal' for short]. The petitioner in the aforesaid Original Petition has filed C.M.A.No.3048 of 2023 seeking enhancement of compensation. The second respondent/Insurance Company has filed C.M.A.No.691 of 2024 praying to set aside the impugned Award. This Common Judgment will now dispose of both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

2. For the sake of convenience, henceforth, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Petition.

PETITIONER'S CASE

3. The petitioner is the mother of the deceased – Sathish Kumar. On December 18, 2017 at about 07.00 hours, when the deceased Sathish Kumar was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-02-AL-4434 on Park Road, Soundarya Colony, 7th Avenue Road Junction, Thirumangalam, a ‘motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-23-BA-1125’ ['alleged offending motorcycle’ for clarity] proceeding from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased’s motorcycle, due to which, the deceased was thrown out and sustained head injury. Immediately, he was taken to Anna Nagar Apollo Hospital and treated as in-patient from December 18, 2017 to December 22, 2017 and on December 22, 2017 he succumbed to the injuries. The first respondent being the owner of the alleged offending motorcycle and the second respondent, being its insurer, are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a Claim Petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest and costs.

FIRST RESPONDENT'S CASE

4. The first respondent, being the owner of the alleged offending motorcycle filed counter. He denied the allegations made by the petitioner in the claim petition and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

SECOND RESPONDENT'S CASE

5. The second respondent – Insurance Company filed a counter denying the averments made in the claim petition and contending that the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. Further, Insurance Company stoutly opposed the petitioner’s claim amount as highly excessive and sought to dismiss the petition.

TRIBUNAL

6. On the side of the petitioner, petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and four other witnesses were examined as P.W.2 to P.W.5. Through P.W.1, Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.12 were marked; through P.W.2, Ex-P.13 and Ex-P.14 were marked; through P.W.3, Ex-P.15 was marked; through P.W.4, Ex-P.16 to Ex-P.19 were marked and through P.W.5, Ex.P.20 to Ex-P.22 were marked. On the side of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked.

7. The Tribunal, relying on the evidence of P.W.1, Ex-P.1 – First Information Report (FIR) as well as Ex-P.3 – Charge Sheet, concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the 1st respondent. Further, relying on the evidence of Ex-P.18, which are income related documents of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed notional income at Rs.19,500/- per month. Considering the age of the deceased at the time of accident, the Tribunal, relying on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma -vs- Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, adopted the