The court established that the first respondent's negligence caused the accident, and the insurance company is liable to pay compensation despite policy violations.

JUDGMENT :

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement of compensation against the Award dated January 24, 2019, passed in M.C.O.P.No.140 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Ariyalur (Chief Judicial Magistrate).

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to modify the Award dated January 24, 2019, passed in M.C.O.P.No.140 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur, regarding the portion of the Award pay and recovery and quantum of the compensation amount.

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the Award dated January 24, 2019, passed in M.C.O.P.No.140 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur.

This Common Judgment will govern the following Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed assailing the ‘Award dated January 24, 2019, passed in M.C.O.P.No.140 of 2016’ [henceforth ‘impugned Award’], by the ‘Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Ariyalur (Chief Judicial Magistrate)’ [henceforth ‘Tribunal’]:

(i) C.M.A.No.3927 of 2019 filed by the petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation,

(ii) C.M.A.No.3204 of 2019 filed by the first respondent praying to set aside the impugned Award,

(iii) C.M.A.No.149 of 2022 filed by the second respondent praying to set aside the impugned Award.

2. Hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, the parties will be denoted as per their array before the Tribunal.

PETITIONER’S CASE IN BRIEF:

3. The petitioner - Sundaramoorthy, at the time of the accident was aged about 21 years and was an engineering graduate employed in a private company. On the fateful day viz., September 17, 2015, the petitioner was returning to hometown from a friend’s wedding at Orathanadu along with his friends, Amuthan (first respondent) and Raj, on first respondent’s Yamaha two-wheeler bearing Registration No. TN-61-F- 5492. First respondent was on the wheel while the petitioner and the said Raj were on the pillion.

3.1. Near Madigai village at about 16.30 Hours, the first respondent rode rashly and negligently, and he failed to notice a speed bump and hit it at high speed. This knocked them off the bike, injuring all three. The petitioner suffered severe head injury, multiple fractures and other bodily injuries. He was rushed to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital for first aid, and thereafter admitted as an inpatient in Meenakshi Hospital, Thanjavur from September 17 to November 12, 2015. The serious head injury left the petitioner in coma. As on the date of application, he was still undergoing treatment.

3.2. The Thanjavur Taluk Police registered a case in Crime No. 407 of 2015 under Sections 279 and 337 of the ‘Indian Penal Code, 1860’ (henceforth ‘IPC’ for brevity) against the first respondent - Amuthan for his rash and negligent riding. First respondent pleaded guilty and paid a fine before the Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur.

3.3. The first respondent as owner and driver of the twowheeler bearing Registration No.TN-61-F-5492, and the second respondent being its insurer, are jointly and severally liable for compensation. Accordingly, the petitioner who was represented by his father - Kuzhanthaivel as his next friend for the reason that the petitioner was in coma, filed an application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) on February 16, 2016 and the same was taken on file on March 29, 2016.

FIRST RESPONDENT’S CASE IN BRIEF:

4. The first respondent filed Counter, whereby he denies the manner of accident. He avers that the petitioner is put to strict proof of age, occupation, income, injuries, period of treatment, etc. Further states that the claim and injuries are exaggerated. Further that, at the time of accident, he had a valid driving licence and rode in a careful manner at a l