The court affirmed the principle of contributory negligence, attributing 20% liability to the deceased's vehicle for carrying excess passengers while primarily holding the lorry driver responsible for the accident.

JUDGMENT :

(R. POORNIMA, J.)

The appellant / 2^nd respondent / Insurance Company has filed these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals against the fair order and decreetal order dated 24.04.2018 passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.68, 69 and 70 of 2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Judge, Tenkasi District.

2. Brief facts of the petitions filed by the claimants before the Tribunal are as follows:

(a) In M.C.O.P.No.68 of 2013, M.C.O.P No. 70 of 2013 filed by the claimant Mrs.Kannagi, mother of the deceased claiming compensation for the death of the Selvi and minor Gautamraj who died in a road accident on 26.02.2012. MCOP No.69 of 2013 was filed by the claimants Mrs.Kannagi, wife of Ammayappan, and Smt. Sudalaiammal, mother of the said Ammayappan claiming compensation for the death of the Ammaiyappan who also died in the same accident.

(b) The claimants stated that on 26.02.2012 at 03.00 p.m., between Tenkasi to Tirunelveli Road, the above-mentioned three persons along with others travelled in a TATA Indica Car bearing registration No.TN 76 L 2902 from Tirunelveli to their native Melagaram. The said car was driven by its driver Balasubramanian at a moderate speed after observing the traffic rules. When the car was nearing Alangulam from the eastern to western side, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN 72 AY 3520 belonging to the first respondent, was driven by its driver Velmurugan in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the TATA Indica Car. As a result, Ms.Selvi, her brother Gowthamraj, her father Ammayappan sustained head injuries and died on the spot.

(c) The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent. A complaint was lodged against the lorry driver bearing registration No.TN 72 AY 3520 and FIR was registered under Section 279, 338, 304(A) of IPC in Crime No.83 of 2012 and the same is pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tenkasi.

(d) Selvi, the daughter of the petitioner was a graduate of B.A. English and Communication, she completed a Diploma in Computer Based Technology and obtained a certificate in NIT and she stood as a brilliant student in education and other curricular activities. She participated in competitions and won prizes. She was in good health and she was expected to live until the age of 90 years. She was employed in a private company and derived a sum of Rs.4,000/-per month. For the loss of estate, loss of happiness and loss of dependency, future income, for funeral expenditure the claimant sought a sum of Rs.85,91,000/- as compensation for her death.

(e) The deceased Ammaiappan was working as an Assistant Manager at Global Wind Power Limited, Chennai. In addition with he operated two cars for hire and earning a sum of Rs.45,000/- per month. As an ex-serviceman, he also received monthly pension of Rs.9,000/-. He was aged about 53 years old and he was good in health and had not died in the accident, he could have lived up to 90 years. The first petitioner is the wife of the deceased and the second petitioner is the mother of the deceased. Therefore, they claimed a sum of Rs.1,04,74,000/- towards compensation for his death.

(f) Minor Gowthamraj, at the time of the accident, was studying in third standard at Mondicherry School. He participated in all competitions, he was a brilliant student and claimed a sum of Rs.83,75,000/-.towards compensation for his death.

(g) The claimants further stated that the lorry bearing Registration No.TN 72 AY 3520 belonged to the first respondent and was insured with the second respondent. The third respondent is the Insurance Company of the TATA Indica Car and the policy was in force. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioners.

3. The brief averments contained in the counter filed by the 3^rd respondent in all claim petitions are as follows:

(a) Since the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the 1^st respondent, this respondent is