The court affirmed the Tribunal's finding of negligence on the lorry driver's part and adjusted the deceased's notional income, resulting in enhanced compensation of Rs.20,56,058.

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated April 20, 2022 passed by the 'Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Special Subordinate Court, Cuddalore', ['Tribunal' for short] in M.C.O.P.No.1523 of 2016, the fourth respondent therein / Insurance Company has preferred C.M.A.No.470 of 2023 praying to set aside the Award, while the petitioners therein have preferred C.M.A.No.2123 of 2023 praying to enhance the compensation. This Common Judgment will dispose of 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 Accidents Claim Original Petition.

PETITIONERS’ CASE

3. Petitioners are father and mother of the deceased - S.Ramanarayanan. On January 10, 2016 at about 02.30 a.m., the deceased – S.Ramanarayanan was travelling in the Car bearing Regn.No.TN-22-CH-9267, driven by another deceased – Ravi, on Chennai-Trichy National Highways near Chepauk Komugi Bridge. At that time, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-34-D-3677, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the said car. Consequently, the deceased - S.Ramanarayanan passed away in the accident. Before the Tribunal, owner of the car who is also the father of the deceased – S.Ramanarayanan, insurer of the Car, as well as the owner and the insurer of the lorry were arrayed as Respondent Nos.1 to 4 respectively. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 23 years and he was a Caterer earning a sum of Rs.75,000/- 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 petitioners filed the Claim Petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) along with interest and costs from the respondents 3 and 4.

RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 3

4. Respondent Nos.1 & 3 are the owners of the said car and the said lorry respectively. They did not appear and choose to contest the petition and hence, were set ex-parte before the Tribunal.

SECOND RESPONDENT’S CASE

5. 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 petitioners. Furthermore, the petitioners must establish the age, income, and occupation of the deceased. At the time of the accident, the deceased was not wearing seatbelt. The validity of driving license of driver of the car, its 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

6. It is the case of the fourth respondent that the allegation that the lorry driver was the root cause of the accident is not true. 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 petitioners. Consequently, the claim against the 4^th respondent / insurer of the lorry is not maintainable, and therefore, the 4^th respondent has prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition against it.

TRIBUNAL

7. Before the Tribunal, the 1^st petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and an ocular / injured witness to the occurrence, namely, Vignesh was examined as P.W.2 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.7 were marked by P.W.1. On the side of the respondents, one Singaravelan, Special Sub Inspector of Police (S.S.I.), Veppur and one Santhyalakshmi, Legal Officer of the 4^th respondent were examined as R.W.1 & R.W.2 respect