The court upheld the tribunal's decision on negligence and compensation, affirming the insurer's liability in the absence of contributory negligence.

JUDGMENT :

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurer challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court (MACT), Krishnagiri in M.C.O.P.No.615 of 2019, dated 08.01.2021.

2. The respondents 1 to 5 filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the death of husband of the 1^st respondent, father of the minor respondents 2 to 4 and son of the 5^th respondent namely Ramesh. According to the claimants, the deceased was driving his Yamaha Crux Motor Bike bearing Registration No.TN-24-A-8070 in Krishnagiri to Kuppam Road slowly and steadily by following all traffic rules. At that point of time, Honda Splendor Bike belonged to the 6^th respondent herein insured with the appellant was driven by 6^th respondent in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle of the deceased. As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died. Hence, the claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

3. The Appellant/Insurance Company opposed the claim petition by denying the manner of accident as described in the claim petition. It was the case of the Appellant-Insurer and the 1^st respondent in the original petition that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased.

4. Before the Tribunal, the 1^st respondent/1^st claimant was examined as PW.1 and two other witnesses were examined as PW.2 and PW.3 and 15 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P15 on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the 6^th respondent herein, no witness was examined and no document was marked. On behalf of the Appellant/Insurance Company, the Assistant, RTO Office, Krishnagiri was examined as RW.1 and the Sub-Inspector of Police, Maharajakadai Police Station was examined as RW.2 and 8 documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R8.

5. The Tribunal based on the oral evidence of PW.1, PW.2, R.W.2 and contents of FIR-Ex.P1, came to the conclusion that accident had occurred only due to negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant-insurer. The compensation payable to the claimants was quantified at Rs.17,48,750/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurer of the offending vehicle has come before this Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the deceased failed to wear helmet and hence, the Tribunal should have fixed atleast 15% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The learned counsel also submitted that the deceased dashed against the parked vehicle and therefore, there is contributory negligence on his part.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5/claimants would submit that the Tribunal based on the documentary evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant-insurer and the same requires no interference.

8. In order to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant, the 1^st claimant was examined as PW.1 and she was not an eye-witness to the incident, therefore, her evidence cannot be taken into consideration to decide the negligence. PW.2 is an eye-witness, who deposed about the negligence on the part of the vehicle insured with the appellant. Ex.P1 is the FIR registered against the 6^th respondent-driver cum owner of the offending vehicle. RW.2 is the Sub- Inspector of Police, who deposed about the filing of criminal case against the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant. He clearly deposed that final report was filed against the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant.

9. The Tribunal based on the evidence of PW.2, contents of Ex.P1-FIR and RW.2, rightly came to the conclusion that the negligence was on the part of the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant and the same require no interference from this Court.

10. It is vehement