The court clarified that negligence attributed to the deceased does not apply; full compensation under composite negligence can be claimed without reductions for contributory negligence, ensuring justice in compensation awards.

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated February 25, 2022 passed by 'the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, I Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore' ['Tribunal' for short] in M.C.O.P. No.106 of 2017, the second respondent therein / insurance company has preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3890 of 2025 praying to set aside the Award, while the petitioners therein have preferred Cross Objection No.14 of 2026 praying to enhance the compensation awarded.

2. This Common Judgment will now decide both, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection.

3. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Petition.

PETITIONERS' CASE

4. The petitioners are the parents of the deceased - Bharath Bandari. On November 12, 2016, at about 10.30 p.m., the deceased - Bharath Bandari was travelling in an Alto Car bearing Registration No.KA-07-M-1707, owned by first respondent, driven by one Arun Kumar. When the said Arun Kumar attempted to overtake a Mahindra Van bearing Registration No.AP-02-Y-9774, in a rash and negligent manner, he lost control of the car and dashed against the Mahindra Van, as a result of which, the occupants of the Alto Car including the petitioners' son sustained grievous injuries. The petitioners' son was rushed to CMC Hospital, Vellore for treatment, where he succumbed to his injuries on November 13, 2016.

4.1. In connection with the said accident, First Information Report (F.I.R.) in Crime No.171 of 2016 was registered on the file of the Bangarupalem Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 [I.P.C.], against the driver of the first respondent's car namely Arun Kumar.

4.2. At the time of the accident, the petitioner was aged 28 years and working as Senior Campaign Manager in Skillogic at Bangalore, earning a sum of Rs.29,900/- per month.

4.3. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the first respondent's car. The respondents 1 and 2 being the owner and the insurer of the offending car respectively, are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioners for the loss of their son. Stating so, the petitioners filed the Claim Petition seeking a compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only).

FIRST RESPONDENT'S CASE

5. First respondent remained absent and was set ex-parte by the Tribunal.

SECOND RESPONDENT'S CASE

6. The second respondent filed a counter statement denying the petition averments and disputing the manner of the accident. Apart from the routine grounds raised, it was specifically contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent's car; the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the said Mahindra Van bearing Registration No.AP-02-Y-9774. In any event, the driver of the Mahindra Van contributed to the accident. As the petitioners failed to implead the owner and the insurer of the said Mahindra Van, the Claim Petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Further, the driver of the first respondent's car did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation from second respondent. Accordingly, the second respondent prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

TRIBUNAL

7. At trial, on the side of the petitioners, the father of petitioner - Mr.Narasimhaiah, who is also the second petitioner, was examined