R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

JUDGMENT :

1. Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated March 25, 2022 passed in M.C.O.P. No.2413 of 2019 on the file of the 'Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai' ['Tribunal' for short], the second respondent therein/Insurance Company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

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

PETITIONERS' CASE

3. The first petitioner is the wife of the deceased – Bharath. Second petitioner is his minor son while 3^rd and 4^th petitioners are his parents. On March 17, 2019 at about 07.00 a.m., while the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-22-BJ-2212 in South to North direction on Anna Salai, Teynampet, along with 4^th petitioner in another two wheeler, a Tata Super Ace bearing Registration No.TN-31- BB-8038 driven in a rash and negligent manner coming from the opposite lane, suddenly crossed the center median and dashed against the motorcycle ridden by the deceased and due to the impact, the deceased sustained multiple injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was taken to Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai where he was declared as 'brought dead'. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 31 years. He was working as Member Technical Staff, Zoho Corporation Pvt. Ltd., and was earning a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) per month. The 1^st respondent is the owner and the 2^nd respondent is the insurer of the said Tata Super Ace bearing Registration No.TN-31-BB- 8038. Hence, the petitioners filed the Original Petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs only) from the respondents.

FIRST RESPONDENT'S CASE

4. The first respondent – Company is the owner of the said Tata Super Ace bearing Registration No.TN-31-BB-8038. They did not appear before the Tribunal and contest the Original Petition. Hence, they were set ex-parte by the Tribunal. SECOND RESPONDENT'S CASE

5. The second respondent – Insurance Company filed a counter merely denying all the petition averments. The age, income and occupation of the deceased were denied. It was further denied that the 1st respondent's Driver had a valid driving license and the vehicle was insured with the 2^nd respondent at the time of accident. Further, the claim of the petitioners was stoutly opposed as excessive. It was contended that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. In short, the Counter is nothing more than a formal denial, seeking for dismissal of the Claim Petition.

TRIBUNAL

6. Before the Tribunal, the 1^st petitioner was examined as P.W.1, 4^th petitioner, ocular witness to the accident, was examined as P.W.2, one Guru Prasad, Human Resource Manager at Zoho Corporation Pvt. Ltd., was examined as P.W.3 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.27 were marked on the side of the petitioners. Neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked on the side of the second respondent.

7. The Tribunal, upon hearing either side and perusing the evidence available on record, relied on Ex-P.1 – First Information Report (FIR), Ex-P.23 - Charge Sheet and the evidence of P.W.1 as well as P.W.2, who is an ocular witness to the accident, to conclude that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Super Ace bearing Registration No.TN-31-BB-8038. Since the first respondent's Tata Super Ace was insured with the second respondent –

Insurance Company and the insurance policy was in force on the date of accident, the Tribunal held that the second respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.1,30,72,400/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Lakhs Seventy-Two Thousand and Four Hundred only). The split up figure is as follows: