The court recalculated compensation based on actual income and confirmed liability for the accident rested solely with the third respondent, dismissing claims against others.

JUDGMENT :

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition against respondents 1 and 2 herein, as well as by the quantum of compensation awarded, vide Award dated November 18, 2022 passed in M.C.O.P. No.279 of 2018 on the file of the ‘III Additional Sessions Court, Vellore @ Tirupattur’ ['Tribunal' for short], the appellants/petitioners therein have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

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

PETITIONERS' CASE:

3. The case of the claimants is that on May 16, 2016 at about 3.00 p.m., the deceased - Saravanan was standing near his motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-23-BM-7278 on the roadside of the service road to the Vaniyambadi to Ambur Main Road near IELC School. At that time, a car bearing Registration No.TN-23-BT-9706 belonging to first respondent, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased - Saravanan. Due to the impact, the said Saravanan suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. Further, after the first respondent’s car hit the deceased, another car bearing Registration No.TN-23-AC-9905 belonging to third respondent dashed the backside of the first respondent’s car. The deceased died only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing registration No. TN-23-BT-9706. At the time of accident, the deceased was earning more than a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as an employee of Mohib Shoes Company. At the time of accident, the first respondent’s vehicle was insured with the second respondent. Hence, the claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) from respondents 1 and 2.

FIRST RESPONDENT'S CASE :

4. The first respondent is the owner of the car bearing Registration No.TN-23-AC-9706. He filed a counter affidavit stating that his car was not involved in the accident. The first respondent stated that on May 16, 2016, it being an election day, he went to IELC School to cast his vote parking his car outside the School in the service road. Then, he came to know that the third respondent’s car bearing Registration No. TN-23- AC-9905, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased and then, collided with his car. The first respondent is not a necessary party to the claim petition. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

SECOND RESPONDENT CASE:

5. The second respondent, insurer of the first respondent’s car, filed a counter affidavit reiterating the averments contained in the first respondent’s counter. In addition to that, it is stated that First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by first petitioner / wife of the deceased against the third respondent’s car bearing Registration No. TN-23-BT-9905. Further, the third respondent has admitted that his vehicle caused the accident vide letter dated November 24, 2018 addressed to the second respondent’s investigating authority. The respondents 1 and 2 were falsely impleaded in the claim petition, and they are neither necessary parties nor liable to pay any compensation. As the third respondent’s car does not have a valid insurance, the petitioners have filed the claim petition against respondents 1 and 2, contrary to the FIR preferred by the deceased’s wife /1^st petitioner. Accordingly, it prayed to dismiss the Claim Petition.

TRIBUNAL:

6. During trial, on the side of petitioners, the first petitioner / wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Saritha, eye witness to the accident, was examined as P.W.2 and one Nafeel Ahmed, Admin Manager, Mohib shoes Company was examined as P.W.3 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.15 were marked. On the side of the respondents, the first respondent was examined as R.W.1 and former Motor Vehicle Inspector, Ambur - Kulothungan was examined as R.W.2 and one Chitti Babu, official from the second respondent - insurance company was examined as R.W.3 and Ex-R.1 to Ex-R.6 were mark