Negligence is established by eyewitness testimony; compensation awarded was deemed just and reasonable under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

P.DHANABAL, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed as against the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Special District Court to deal with MCOP cases, Tiruchirappalli., in MCOP No. 842 of 2020 dated 09.08.2023.

2. The appellant is the second respondent in the claim petition and the respondents 1 to 3 herein have filed a claim petition for compensation for a sum of Rs 75 lakhs for the death of one Kumar in a road accident. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.45,24,300/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization by directing the second respondent to pay the amount. Aggrieved by the said award, the second respondent/Insurance company has preferred this appeal.

3. The respondents 1 to 3 herein have filed a petition before the Tribunal alleging that the deceased Kumar is the husband of the first petitioner and father of the petitioners 2 and 3 and son of the respondents 3 and 4 in the original petition. While so, on 13.05.2020 at about 22.30 hrs, the said Kumar was proceeding on a two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-48-AH-6527 on the Madurai-Chennai bypass road opposite to EB office Manapuram and at that time, a vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-10-BF-6289 which belongs to the first respondent insured with the second respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle driven by Kumar, as a result of which, the said Kumar was thrown out from the vehicle and he sustained injuries all over the body and he died on the way to hospital. The accident took place due to negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent and already a case was registered in Crime No.61 of 2010 as against the driver of the first respondent. The deceased Kumar was employed as Village Administrative Officer and he was drawing a salary of Rs.33,314/- per month and also receiving a sum of Rs.10,000/- as bonus and therefore, the petitioners claimed Rs.75 lakhs as compensation.

4. The second respondent before the Tribunal who is the appellant herein has filed a counter denying averments made in the petition. According to the second respondent, the accident took place due to negligence on the part of the deceased and the first respondent in the main petition drove the vehicle in the normal speed by observing the traffic rules and the deceased only suddenly crossed the road and thereby, the accident occurred. The driver of the first respondent had no valid licence at the time of accident and thereby, the second respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. The second respondent also denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and therefore, without prejudice the above contention raised by the respondent, the claim made is highly excessive.

5. The respondents 3 and 4 also filed counter stating that the deceased Kumar is their son and he died in the road accident on 13.05.2020. The accident occurred due to the negligent driving on the part of the driver of the first respondent and being the legal dependants of the deceased, they are also entitled for compensation.

6. Based on the above said pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following points for determination:

a) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 01 AT 8758? whether the deceased contributed to the accident as alleged by the second respondent?

b) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation as prayed for ?

c) What is the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners?

d) To what relief?

7. Before the Tribuna