The court established that the FIR does not solely determine negligence, and the multiplier method is appropriate for calculating compensation based on functional disability.

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated September 6, 2022 passed by the 'Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Special Subordinate Court, Cuddalore', ['Tribunal' for short] in M.C.O.P.No.1524 of 2016, the fourth respondent therein / Insurance Company has preferred C.M.A.No. 2285 of 2023 praying to set aside the Award, while the petitioner therein has preferred C.M.A.No.2854 of 2022 praying to enhance the compensation. This Common Judgment will now decide both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Motor Claims Original Petition No. 1524 of 2016.

PETITIONER’S CASE

3. On January 10, 2016 at about 02.30 a.m., the petitioner / injured was travelling in the Car bearing Registration No. TN-22-CH-9267 driven by one Ravi – a deceased in the accident, on Chennai-Trichy National Highways near Chepauk Komugi Bridge River. At that time, a lorry bearing Registration No. TN-34-D-3677, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Car. Consequently, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and multiple fractures all over his body and head. According to the petitioner/injured, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Before the Tribunal, owner and insurer of the said car, as well as owner and insurer of the said lorry, were arrayed as Respondent Nos.1 to 4 respectively. At the time of accident, the petitioner was a 23 years old Pandit earning a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month. Stating that the lorry was insured with the 4^th respondent and that the accident occurred due to the careless and reckless driving of the driver of the 3^rd respondent’s lorry, the petitioner filed the Claim Petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) along with interest and costs from the respondents.

SECOND RESPONDENT’S CASE

4. It is the case of the second respondent that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-34-D-3677, as he drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner, causing the accident. In the absence of proof of negligence on the part of the car driver, the 2^nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner must establish the age, income, and occupation of the deceased. The validity of the deceased’s driving license, Registration Certificate, Permit etc., was disputed. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered with a false narration of facts. Stating that the compensation claimed is unsustainable and excessive, the 2^nd respondent prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.

FOURTH RESPONDENT’S CASE

5. It is the case of the fourth respondent that the allegation that the lorry driver was the root cause of the accident is denied. As per FIR and charge sheet, the car driver was responsible for the accident. Since the car driver / deceased – Ravi died in the accident, the case was closed as abated. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent / insurer of the car is liable to compensate the petitioner. Consequently, the claim against the 4^th respondent / insurer of the lorry is not maintainable, and therefore, the 4^th respondent has prayed for dismissal of the claim petition against it.

TRIBUNAL

6. The enquiry was conducted jointly with that of MCOP No. 1525 of 2016. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner in MCOP No.1525 of 2016, namely Balajisharma was examined as P.W.1 and the petitioner herein was examined as P.W.2 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.21 were marked. On the side of the respondents, one Santhialakshmi, Legal Officer of the 4^th respondent / insurer of the lorry was examined as R.W.1 and copy of charge sheet was marked as Ex-R.1. The disability certificate No.2035, issued by the District Medical Board, Government Head Quarters Hospital, Cuddalore, assessing the disability of the petitioner at 37% was marked as Ex-C.1.

7. The Tribunal, after considering the ev