The insurance company remains liable for compensation even when the deceased's negligence is alleged, unless proven otherwise through admissible evidence.

JUDGMENT :

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated September 30, 2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.124 of 2015 on the file of the 'Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Additional District Court, Tiruppur at Dharapuram' ['Tribunal' for short] the third respondent / Insurance Company preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

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

Petitioners' case

3.The 1^st petitioner is the wife, petitioners 2 to 4 are the children and 5^th petitioner is the father of the deceased – Sudhasankar. The case of the petitioners is that on September 23, 2014 at about 01.00pm, while the deceased was travelling in a Car bearing Registration No.TN-37- CB-8572 towards North near Chinnamuthur on Erode to Vellakovil main road, the 1^st respondent who was driving the Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-34-B-4204 in a rash and negligent manner, without keeping the road rules and drove the vehicle on high speed from opposite direction dashed against the Car in which the deceased travelled and caused the accident. In the accident the deceased sustained multiple injuries all over his body and he succumbed to the injuries on October 10, 2014. The deceased was the head of the family and the entire family depend on his income. The 1^st respondent was under the employment of the 2^nd respondent who is the Owner of the lorry which involved in the accident. The 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the Lorry of the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, claiming compensation of Rs.70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs Only) from the respondents. Accordingly, the petitioners filed the claim petition before the Tribunal.

1st & 2nd  Respondents' case

4.The 1^st and 2^nd respondents have not contested the case and remained Ex-parte.

3rd  Respondent's case

5. The 3^rd respondent – Insurance Company filed counter stating that the Policy number 1706003114P102871861 covered the interest of the 2^nd respondent Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-34-B- 4204 at the material point of time for the period from July 24, 2014 to July 23, 2015. It was stated that the 1^st respondent did not hold a valid driving license at the time of accident, thereby, he violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Additionally, the Lorry did not have a valid fitness certificate and permit which constitutes a violation of law. Therefore, the 3^rd respondent has no liability to pay compensation to the petitioners. Insurance company further states that, the accident was caused due to the negligent act of the deceased, who himself invited the accident. The petitioners are not entitled to claim interest on Non-Pecuniary damages. The age, occupation and income of the deceased to be proved by the petitioners through relevant material evidence. The legal heirship of the deceased should be proved by the petitioners through documentary evidence. As such, the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly speculative, exaggerated, excessive and are without any legal or factual basis. The petitioners are neither competent to file this petition nor the petition is maintainable, because, the accident happened only due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased. The Police registered a case against the deceased and not against the driver of the Lorry. The charge against deceased was closed by the Police as “Charge abated” due to the death of the deceased. It is basic principle of tort that no one can claim for his own negligence. Therefore, the 3^rd respondent holds no liability to pay compensation to the petitioners. The final report filed by the Police reveals that the accident was happened due to the negligence of the decease