The court modified the compensation for a motor accident, emphasizing fair assessment based on the deceased's income, age, and family dependency, while attributing 10% contributory negligence to the deceased.

JUDGMENT :

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the Award dated October 14, 2022 passed in M.C.O.P.No.56 of 2021 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court at Ariyalur.

PRAYER: Cross Objection filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for enhancement of compensation awarded vide Award dated October 14, 2022 passed in M.C.O.P.No.56 of 2021 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court at Ariyalur.

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated October 14, 2022 passed by the 'Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Ariyalur' ['Tribunal' for short] in M.C.O.P.No.56 of 2021, the second respondent therein - Insurance Company has preferred C.M.A.No.2703 of 2023 praying to set aside the Award, while the petitioners therein have preferred Cross Objection No.78 of 2024 praying to enhance the compensation. This Common Judgment will now decide both, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal in the Motor Claims Original Petition.

Petitioners' case:

3. The 1st petitioner is the mother of the deceased – Ajithkumar. 2nd petitioner is his father while 3rd and 4th petitioners are his sisters. On the fateful day viz., March 22, 2021, at about 09.30 p.m., the deceased–Ajithkumar was riding a Pulsar motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-61-R-6059 with one Arvind on the pillion, on Sendurai to Jayankondam Main Road. While so, the 1st respondent's Lorry viz., Ashok Leyland Dhosth bearing Registration No.TN-23-CY-5836 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle, knocking the deceased off the motorcycle. The deceased sustained injuries on his head and consequently, passed away on the spot. Then postmortem was conducted at Government Hospital, Ariyalur.

3.1. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 21 years old, had completed Diploma in I.T.I. and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- as an A.C. Mechanic. He was earning a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-per annum by way of cultivating his own land as well.

3.2. The 1st petitioner lodged a complaint before Sendurai Police station against the driver of the 1st respondent’s Lorry. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent’s Lorry; the first respondent's vehicle has been insured with the second respondent – Insurance Company; and hence, both the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners filed the Claim Petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs only) along with interest and costs.

1st Respondent's case

4. The 1st respondent filed counter denying the Claim Petition averments and also contending that the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. According to him, while his driver was driving carefully, it is the deceased, who in an inebriated mood, rode his motorcycle rashly and negligently, crossed the median, lost balance, fell down and sustained injuries, due to which he passed away on the spot. However, a false case was registered against the 1st respondent. Further, at any rate the 1st respondent is not liable to pay compensation as his vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, he sought the Claim Petition to be dismissed with costs.

4.1. To be noted, though 1st respondent filed Counter, he remained absent before Tribunal and therefore, set ex-parte on June 22, 2022.

2nd Respondent's case

5. The 2nd respondent – Insurance Company filed Counter, whereby they deny the allegations levelled by the petitioners in the Claim Petition and contend that the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same.

According to them, while 1st respondent’s driver was driving in a slow and cautious mann