JUDGMENT :

P. Vadamalai, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred challenging the Award, dated 07.12.2024 passed in MCOP.No.68 of 2021 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Virudhunagar.

2.The petitioners/claimants in M.C.O.P.No.68 of 2021 have preferred the appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation. The respondents herein are respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties as arrayed in M.C.O.P.No.68 of 2021 are adopted hereunder.

4.The brief facts of the case:

On 23.02.2021 at about 5.00 p.m., the deceased Bakiyalakshmi, along with her relatives were drying the agricultural goods on the side of the Sennalkudi - Kottur road near Sennalkudi. At that time, the first respondent’s two wheeler bearing registration No.TN 67 BL 4972 was ridden by its rider along with two pillion riders at a hectic speed from north to south on the said road and dashed against the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased Bakiyalakshmi was thrown away and sustained multiple fatal injuries. Immediately, she was taken to Government Hospital, Virudhunagar, but she died. An FIR in Crime No.56 of 2021 U/s.279 and 304(A) of IPC was registered against the rider of the two wheeler by the Soolakarai Police Station. The deceased Bakiyalakshmi was 42 years old, and was earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. as she was doing agricultural work. The first petitioner is the husband, and the petitioners 2 to 4 are sons of the deceased Bakiyalakshmi. The first respondent’s vehicle was insured with the second respondent at the time of the accident. Hence, the petitioners filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-.

5.The first respondent remained ex-parte.

6.The 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company objected the claim petition by contending that the rider of the first respondent was not holding a valid license at the time of the accident. However, the accident took place due to the rash and negligence of the deceased, who crossed the road without due care. Hence, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.

7.Before the Tribunal, on the petitioners' side, the first petitioner was examined as PW1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 were marked. On the second respondent's side, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 were marked. In addition, Ex.C.1 was also marked.

8.After hearing both sides and after considering the evidence, the Tribunal has passed the impugned order, dated 07.12.2024 that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent riding of the first respondent’s two wheeler. The Tribunal has fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- p.m. and awarded a total compensation of Rs.14,77,000/- to the petitioners. The Tribunal further directed the second respondent to deposit the awarded amount and to recover the same from the first respondent by filing a separate application, as the first respondent's rider has no driving license.

9.Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioners/claimants have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

10.Heard both sides and perused the records in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

11.The learned counsel for the petitioners/claimants has submitted that when the deceased Bakiyalakshmi was drying the pulses of agricultural products, the first respondent's vehicle rider caused the accident due to his rash and negligent driving. An FIR was registered against the rider of the two wheeler. Therefore, the Tribunal has correctly fixed the negligence on the part of the first respondent's rider.

12.The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company has submitted that the deceased Bakiyalakshmi was doing agricultural work on a road, which is meant for traffic, and therefore, some reasonable contributory negligence may be fixed on her.

13.The learned counsel for the petitioners replied that the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company has not filed any cross appeal or appeal against the finding of the Tribunal.

14.On perusal of the rec