JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated May 25, 2022 passed in M.C.O.P. No.139 of 2018 on the file of the ‘Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Perambalur’ ['Tribunal' for short], the second respondent/Insurance Company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

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

Petitioner’s case :

3. The case of the petitioner is that on January 02, 2018 at about 12.15 hours, he was travelling as a cleaner in Mahindra Navistar Truck bearing Registration No.TN-18-J-0612 loaded with iron rods, on Trichy-Chennai Highway. While approaching Venganoor Bus-stop, the said Truck was driven by petitioner’s relative / first respondent, namely Rajavel in a rash and negligent manner and the front right side tyre of the said Truck suddenly burst. Consequently, first respondent lost control and the vehicle toppled upside down. In the accident, the petitioner’s left leg was crushed between iron rods. Immediately, he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Perambalur for first aid and then admitted in Atlas Hospital, Trichy, where his left leg below knee was removed. Even thereafter he continued treatment as in-patient in Thanjavur Government Medical College Hospital and a surgery was performed again in his left leg. The accident happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent against whom a case was registered in Crime No.3/2018 under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the Ramanatham Police, Cuddalore. The petitioner was aged about 34 years at the time of accident and he was working as a load man in M.M.S. Fisheries on contract basis and earned Rs.1000/- per day i.e., Rs.30,000/- per month. Accordingly, he filed claim petition seeking Rs.1,00,00,000/- as compensation from the first respondent who is the owner cum driver of the Truck and the second respondent who is its insurer.

First respondent's case :

4. The first respondent remained absent and was set ex-parte before the Tribunal.

Second respondent’s case :

5. The 2^nd respondent – Insurance Company filed counter denying the petition averments and stating that the petitioner was travelling as an unauthorized passenger and hence, second respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Accordingly, the second respondent prayed to dismiss the original petition.

Tribunal :

6. Before the Tribunal, in order to prove the petitioner’s case, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1, one Rajaraman was examined as P.W.2 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.15 were marked. On the side of the respondents, one Tmt.Bama, attached to Regional Transport Office, Virudachalam was examined as R.W.1, and Ex-R.1 & Ex-R.2 were marked. The disability certificate issued by Medical Board attached with Government Hospital, Perambalur was marked as Ex-C.1.

7. The Tribunal after hearing both sides and considering the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of 1^st respondent. It was the duty of Driver as well as the owner of the vehicle to check the tyre quality and its air before journey, but they did not do so. Since the petitioner was travelling as an unauthorized passenger, the first respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation. However, as the first respondent’s vehicle was insured with the second respondent, the second respondent shall pay and recover the same from the 1^st respondent. As regards quantum of compensation, the Tribunal held that the petitioner has failed to prove his income and accordingly, it took notional income at Rs.8,000/- per month. Adding 40% future prospects to it, applying the multiplier of 16, and considering functional disability at 80%, the Tribunal awarded Rs.17,20,320/- as compensation under the head ‘loss of income’ and also awarded compensation under various other heads as detailed hereunder: