The court established that both the Tanker Lorry driver and the deceased contributed to the accident, attributing 85% negligence to the driver, while also correcting the compensation calculation based on the deceased's actual income.

JUDGMENT :

R.Sakthivel, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated March 29, 2021 passed by 'the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Principal District Court, Perambalur' ['Tribunal' for short] in M.C.O.P. No.450 of 2018, the petitioner therein has preferred C.M.A. No.2466 of 2021 seeking enhancement of compensation, while the second respondent therein namely The New India Assurance Company Limited, has preferred C.M.A. No.1740 of 2022 seeking to set aside the Award.

2. As these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of one and the same Award, they will be disposed of by this Common Judgment.

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

PETITIONER'S CASE

4. Prasath, son of the petitioner, passed away in an accident that occurred on January 1, 2018 at about 17:00 hours. On the fateful day, the deceased - Prasath was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-48-X-6808, with his mother / petitioner on the pillion seat. The deceased was proceeding from west to east on the Perambalur Bypass Road, near Musiri Pirivu Road, Thuraiyur. At that time, the Tanker Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-AA-3799, belonging to the first respondent, which was travelling in the same direction behind the two- wheeler, overtook the motorcycle and stopped abruptly without any signal.As a result, the motorcycle dashed against the said Lorry.

4.1. The deceased sustained grievous injuries in his abdomen in the accident. He was initially given first aid at Annai Hospital, Thuraiyur and was thereafter referred to ABC Hospital, Tiruchirappalli, where he underwent four surgeries. Despite prolonged treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on February 4, 2018.

4.2. In connection with the said accident, First Information Report (F.I.R.) in Crime No.8 of 2018 was registered on the file of the Thuraiyur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which was later altered to Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the deceased by the undue influence of the first respondent.

4.3. At the time of the accident, the deceased - Prasath was aged 27 years and was working as an Assistant Professor at Annai Mathammal Sheela Engineering College, Erumapatty, earning a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-.

4.4. The respondents 1 and 2 are the owner and the insurer of the offending Tanker Lorry respectively. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Tanker Lorry. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the Claim Petition seeking a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs 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 disputing the manner of accident and the alleged negligence on the part of the Driver of the first respondent's Tanker Lorry. According to the second respondent, it is the deceased who rode the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, lost control of his vehicle and dashed against the Tanker Lorry parked on the earthen shoulder of the road due to a mechanical breakdown. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent’s vehicle. In fact, the mother of the deceased, who was riding pillion, herself lodged the complaint in the Criminal Case and in her complaint she had stated that her son, the deceased, lost control of the motorcycle and collided with the parked Tanker Lorry. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation. Further, the compensation claimed under various heads is excessive and exorbitant. On these grounds, the second respondent prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition.

TRIBUNAL

7. At trial, on the side of the petitioner, the petitioner being an ocular-witness to the a