The legal heir of a deceased is entitled to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, regardless of estrangement, and mere nomination does not confer exclusive rights over the estate.

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated February 25, 2022 passed by the ‘Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai’ (‘Tribunal’ for short) in M.C.O.P.No.736 of 2015, the respondents therein have preferred CMA.No.222 of 2023 praying to set aside the Award, while the petitioner - claimant therein has preferred CMA No.333 of 2023 praying to enhance the compensation. This Common Judgment will now decide both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

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

PETITIONER’S CASE

3. Petitioner is the husband of the deceased – K.Hemalatha. The case of the petitioner is that on December 12, 2014, at around 11:00 PM, the deceased - K.Hemalatha was riding as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-02-W-6240 driven by her brother / first respondent. The first respondent rode the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, lost control and fell into a deep road hollow near Green Garden Colony, Anna Nagar East, Chennai. Consequently, the deceased – K. Hemalatha sustained head and multiple fatal injuries. Immediately, she was taken to Sundaram Medical Foundation, Shanthi Colony, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Despite treatment at Sundaram Medical Foundation, she passed away on December 24, 2014 and post-mortem was conducted by Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai. At the time of accident, the deceased was working as a Staff Nurse in Government Hospital, Coimbatore. The petitioner claims that the rider of the motorcycle / first respondent was solely responsible for the accident, and hence, the respondents 1 and 2, who were the owner and insurer of the motorcycle respectively, are liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- from the respondents.

FIRST RESPONDENT'S CASE

4. The first respondent (owner of the motorcycle cum brother of the deceased) denied the allegations, asserting that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased, who was carrying luggage and suddenly fell off while he was riding at a normal speed. Further asserted that his vehicle was insured with the second respondent - insurance company under Policy Nos.1-2QOACK P400 and 87622653 [valid from May 8, 2014 to May 7, 2015]. Further, the first respondent was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, if any liability arises, it must be borne solely by the second respondent - insurance company. Thus, he sought to dismiss the claim petition.

SECOND RESPONDENT'S CASE

5. The second respondent - insurance company denied its liability and contended that the first respondent lacked a valid driving license, making the claim untenable due to policy violations. Further, second respondent contested the alleged cause of the accident, the deceased’s income and the compensation claimed. Thus, it sought to dismiss the claim petition.

TRIBUNAL

6. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1, one Mr.K.T.Palaniswamy, Junior Assistant, Coimbatore Medical College was examined as P.W.2 and one Mr.T.Murthy, an ocular witness to the accident was examined as P.W.3, and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.14 were marked on the side of the petitioner. On the side of the first respondent, the first respondent - Mr.R.Dhandapani was examined as R.W.1 and Ex-R.1 to Ex- R.5 were marked. Neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked on the side of the second respondent.

7. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and considering the evidence available on record, held that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle / first respondent and accordingly, directed the second respondent, being the insurer of the first respondent's vehicle, to pay compensation to the petitioner. The break-up of the compensation awarded is as hereunder:-