Negligence in accidents is shared where evidence supports multiple parties' involvement, and compensation must reflect just assessments based on calculated income loss and damages.

JUDGMENT :

The above appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance company seeking to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 08.12.2023 passed in M.C.O.P.No. 1094 of 2020 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge No.1, Cuddalore

2. For brevity, the appellant is herein after referred to as insurer of the motor cycle (offending vehicle), respondents 6 and 8 are hereinafter referred to as owner of the Tractor and motorcycle and the 7^th respondent is referred to as insurer of the Tractor.

3. It is the case of the appellant that, on 05.09.2020 at about 3.00 p.m., when the deceased was riding his two wheeler bearing Regn.No.TN 31 AH 7166 by overtaking a tractor belonging to the 6^th respondent bearing Regn.No.TN 32 R 4830 tied with a trailer bearing Regn.No.TN 32 R 4830 loaded with sugar cane insured with the seventh respondent/insurer of the Tractor and while proceeding in front of the Tractor, a two wheeler which came in the opposite direction bearing Regn.No.TN 05 BM 0614 driven by the eight respondent, insured with the appellant insurance company dashed the vehicle driven by the deceased. Thereafter, the deceased was thrown out of the vehicle and the tractor which was following the deceased also dashed the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died. Thereby, the wife, sons and mother of the deceased/claimants have filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of the deceased .

4. Before the Tribunal, the claimants have examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Exhibits P.1 to Ex.P.12. On the side of the owner and the insurer of the respective vehicles, they have neither examined any witnesses nor marked any exhibits, After trial, the Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place solely due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Tractor and the Motor Cycle and awarded a sum of Rs.29,87,500/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased and held that the appellant/insurer of the Motor cycle and the 7^th respondent/insurer of the Tractor are liable to pay the above compensation. Challenging the same, the above appeal has been filed by the insurer of the motor cycle/appellant insurance company.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer of the motorcycle submitted that, though the F.I.R. has been registered as against the driver of the Tractor, however, the Tribunal has fastened 50% negligence on the part of the driver of the two wheeler by directing the appellant insurance company to pay 50% of the compensation which is per se unsustainable. In the absence of income proof, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/- which cannot be sustained. Insofar as the compensation awarded under the other heads are concerned, the same is highly excessive, which warrants interference of this Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5/claimants submits that admittedly the said accident had happened only due to the drivers of the tractor and the motor cycle and in order to prove the negligence the claimants examined P.W.2, who clearly deposed the manner in which the said accident had happened. Hence, the Tribunal upon considering the oral and documentary evidence, had fixed 50% : 50% negligence on the part of the drivers of the two wheeler and the Tractor which does not warrant any interference. Hence, the insurer of the Tractor and the motor cycle are liable to indemnify the claimants for the loss sustained by them due to the death of the deceased.

7. The learned counse