The court enhanced the compensation for death in a motor accident, establishing the deceased's notional income and confirming the negligence of the Lorry driver.

JUDGMENT :

Feeling aggrieved with the Award dated January 28, 2022 passed by the 'Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special District Court for Motor Accident Claims Cases), Krishnagiri' ('Tribunal' for short) in M.C.O.P.No.212 of 2021, the second respondent therein - Insurance Company has preferred C.M.A.No.1626 of 2022 praying to set aside the Award, while the petitioners therein namely Lakshmi, Aarthi and Saroja, have preferred Cross Objection No.45 of 2023 praying to enhance the compensation.

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

Petitioners' case:

3. First petitioner is the mother of the deceased - Arunkumar; second petitioner is his sister and third petitioner is his grandmother.

3.1.On October 2, 2018, at about 14.00 hours, the deceased - Arunkumar, son of late Ramesh, was riding a TVS Jupiter Scooty bearing Registration No.TN-70-X-2675 from Zuzuvadi towards Bederapalli, with one Vinoth as a pillion. While passing near S.V.S. Granite Company on the Sipcot to Bederapalli Road, the driver of the Ashok Leyland Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No. TN-52-F-5244, without giving any signal, warning, or indication of his approach, and without honking or following traffic regulations, suddenly pulled the Trailer Lorry out from the company premises onto the main road in a rash and negligent manner, thereby obstructing the road. As a result, Arunkumar lost control and crashed into the lorry. Consequently, Arunkumar sustained grievous injuries on his face and other vital organs and passed away on the spot. Post-mortem was conducted at the Government Hospital, Hosur.

3.2. Since, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Driver of the said Trailer Lorry, the Sipcot Police registered a case in Crime No.383/2018 under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Driver of the Trailer Lorry. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 20 years. He worked as a Cable Operator, earning not less than Rs.20,000/- per month and was contributing his earnings towards the welfare of his family. The Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-52-F-5244 belongs to the first respondent and is insured with the second respondent. Hence, both the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners sought for a compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Only) with interest and costs.

1st Respondent's case:

4. The first respondent did not appear and contest the petition. Hence, she was set ex-parte before the Tribunal on August 17, 2021.

2nd Respondent's case:

5. The second respondent – Insurance Company filed a counter stating that the first respondent’s Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.TN52-F-5244 was not insured with them at the time of accident; that the Driver of the Trailer Lorry did not possess a valid driving license to drive the vehicle; that the deceased who had pre-existing injury in legs drove the vehicle without a proper Driving License and without wearing a Helmet; that the Driver of the Trailer Lorry had exited onto the road while following the traffic rules and regulations and taking due care and caution; that it was the deceased who was solely responsible for the accident, as he rode his Scooty rashly and negligently at over speed and caused the accident; that the police officials without conducting proper enquiry and also in order to support the petitioners, registered false First Information Report (FIR) against the Driver of the Trailer Lorry; that the age, income and occupation of the deceased are denied; that, hence, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, the second respondent-Insurance Company prayed to dismiss the Original Petition.

Trial and Findings:

6. At trial, on the side of the petitioner, the first petitioner - Lakshmi was examined as P.W.1 and one Vinoth, eye-witness, was