The court affirmed that the burden of proof for negligence lies with the party alleging it, and modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to ensure it reflects the deceased's financial contributions accurately.

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated April 26, 2022 passed in M.C.O.P. No.1522 of 2016 on the file of the 'Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Court) at Cuddalore' (in short 'Tribunal'), the 4^th respondent therein / Insurance Company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their array in the Original Petition.

PETITIONERS’ CASE

3. On January 10, 2016 at about 02.30 a.m., the deceased – Ravi was driving a car bearing Registration No.TN-22-CH-9267 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 - Ravi (and a front co-passenger, namely S.Ramanarayanan who is none other than the son of the owner of the car / first respondent) passed away. According to the petitioners, who are the wife, minor daughter and parents of the deceased, at the time of accident, the deceased was a 27 years old Pandit earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. 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. Stating that the lorry was insured with the 4th 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.

RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 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.

CASE OF 2^ND RESPONDENT / INSURER OF 1^ST RESPONDENT’S CAR IN THE COUNTER

5. 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 the deceased’s driving license, Registration Certificate, and 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.

CASE OF 4^TH RESPONDENT / INSURER OF 3^RD RESPONDENT’S LORRY IN THE COUNTER

6. 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 petitioners. Consequently, the claim against the 4th 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, on the side of petitioners, the 1^st petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and a passenger of the said car (who also got injured in the accident), namely Vignesh was examined as P.W.2 and Ex- P.1 to Ex-P.13 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 respectively and a copy of charge sheet was marked as Ex-R.1.

8. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record, held that the accident had occurred on account of fault on the part