The court apportioned negligence as 75% on the driver and 25% on the deceased, affirming that intoxication does not automatically imply negligence.

JUDGMENT :

(R. SAKTHIVEL, J.)

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated March 2, 2022 passed by the ‘Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), Puducherry’ [‘Tribunal’ for short], the second respondent therein / Insurance Company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal praying to set aside the Award.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their rank in the Motor Accident Claim Petition.

Petitioners' case

3. The case of the petitioners is that on June 1, 2019 at about08.30pm, the deceased – Chiranjeevi was crossing Cuddalore – Puducherry Main Road by walk, in front of AA Kanshika Agencies Kattuppam, Puducherry, from east to west direction. At that time, the first respondent’s vehicle - Nissan Sunny car bearing Registration No.TN-50- AD-0506, proceeding from South to North direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. As a result, the deceased suffered injuries all over his body and passed away on the way to hospital. The accident happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Nissan Sunny Car. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the same was insured with the second respondent. Therefore, the claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty Lakhs only) from the respondents.

Respondents' case

4. The first respondent filed counter stating that the deceased without exercising abundant caution suddenly darted across the road and caused the accident. Hence the accident has occurred solely due to the negligent crossing of the deceased and not due to any negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent’s vehicle. At the time of accident, the driver possessed a valid driving license and the vehicle driven by him was also properly insured with the second respondent. Accordingly, the first respondent prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. The second respondent filed counter stating that the deceased -Chiranjeevi died due to injuries sustained in an accident involving some other means and the claimants have falsely filed the claim petition seeking compensation from the respondents. Even otherwise, the accident would have occurred that only due to the negligence of the deceased himself, as he darted across the Main Road under the influence of alcohol. Further, there are willful breaches of Insurance Policy conditions and the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. Hence third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The compensation claimed by the claimants are exorbitant, arbitrary and excessive. Hence, the second respondent prayed to dismiss the petition.

Tribunal

6. During trial, on the side of claimants, the first claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.16 were marked. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex-X.1 and Ex-X.2were marked.

7. The Tribunal after considering the evidence available on record, found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent's vehicle's driver. At the time of accident, the car which caused accident was insured with the second respondent / Insurance Company. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Considering the age of the deceased and nature of his job, the Tribunal has taken a sum of Rs.12,000/- as loss of monthly income, added 40% future prospects, applied the multiplier of 17 and deducted 1/5^th amount towards personal expenses and thereby awarded compensation as stated below:-

8. Ch