The court upheld the Tribunal's finding of negligence by the deceased driver in a fatal accident and confirmed the compensation awarded, modifying one claim due to underestimation of income.

JUDGMENT :

R.Sakthivel, J.

Essentially, this is a case where a car ran into a canal and four people including the driver passed away. The families of three deceased occupants of the car filed M.C.O.P. Nos.702, 703 and 704 of 2016 against parents of the other deceased, who is the owner of the car, as well as the car’s insurer, alleging that the deceased owner of the car was at the wheel and responsible for the accident. The 'Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [I Additional District & Sessions Judge (FAC)], Cuddalore' ['Tribunal' for short] through a common Award dated August 16, 2022, disposed of the said Claim Petitions.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated August 16, 2022, passed in M.C.O.P. Nos.702 of 2016 by the Tribunal, the third respondent therein - Insurance Company has preferred C.M.A.No.2863 of 2022, praying to set aside the same.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the compensation awarded vide the common Award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. Nos.702, 703 and 704 of 2016, the petitioners / claimants in the Claim Petitions have preferred C.M.A. Nos.1629, 1671 and 2901 of 2024 respectively, praying for enhancement of compensation.

4. Hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, the parties will be denoted as per their nomenclature in Original Petitions.

CASE OF THE PETITIONERS IN BRIEF:

5. Between 20.00 hours on December 10, 2015 and 11.00 hours on December 11, 2015, the deceased persons, namely A.Elakkiyarasan, R.Manikandan, D.Parthiban and Arunkumar, were travelling in a Volkswagen Car bearing Registration No.TN-31-BE-7777 owned by the deceased - Arunkumar. According to the petitioners, the deceased - Arunkumar, was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner. Consequently, the car fell into the NLC Drainage Canal (Odai), situated on the south of Nehru Park, Block 8, Neyveli TS. In the said accident, all four occupants including driver passed away on the spot.

5.1. The parents and brother of the deceased - A.Elakkiyarasan filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P. No.702 of 2016 stating that the A.Elakkiyarasan, a B.E. Graduate in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, aged 22 years at the time of accident, was working in a private company in SIPCOT, Cuddalore and thereby earned a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month.

5.2. Similarly, the parents of the deceased - R.Manikandan filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No.703 of 2016 stating that the deceased -R.Manikandan, a B.E. Graduate (Civil Engineering), aged 23 years at the time of accident, was working in a private company in Coimbatore and earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month.

5.3. Similarly, the parents and sisters of the deceased - D.Parthiban filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No.704 of 2016 stating that the deceased - D.Parthiban, aged 23 years at the time of accident, was a Diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering and was working in a private company in Neyveli and earning a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month.

5.4. According to the petitioners, the car involved in the accident was insured with the third respondent – Insurance Company at the time of accident. The respondents 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased - Arunkumar, who is the owner cum driver of the car. Thus, the respondents are liable to pay compensation to them. Accordingly, the families of the three deceased persons sought for a compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- each (Rupees One Crore only).

FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENT

6. The first and second respondents, who are the parents of the deceased – Arunkumar, the owner of the car involved in the accident, remained absent and were set ex-parte by the Tribunal. Notice to them in C.M.A. Nos.1629 and 1671 were already dispensed with by this Court’s Orders dated April 5, 2024 and April 4, 2024 respectively. Notice to them in C.M.A. No.2863 of 2022 and C.M.A. No.2901 of 2024 is hereby dispensed with.

CASE OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT

7. The third respondent filed counter in each of the aforesaid Claim Petitions, the sum and substance of which are essentially the same. The main contention of the third respo