JUDGMENT :

P.VADAMALAI, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred challenging the Award, dated 27.08.2024 passed in M.C.O.P.No.339 of 2022 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special District Judge No.II to deal with MCOP Cases, Tiruchirappalli.

2.The petitioners/claimants in MCOP.No.339 of 2022 have preferred the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties as arrayed in M.C.O.P.No.339 of 2022 are adopted hereunder.

4.The brief facts of the case:

On 01.01.2022 at about 2.30 p.m., the deceased Rathinakumar was riding a two wheeler bearing registration number TN 48 AM 8344 by wearing helmet from east to west at the Namakkal - Thuraiyur main road opposite to Selvaraj Cycle Shop, Thathangarpet, Annamalai Nagar in moderate speed. At the time, the first respondent’s two wheeler bearing registration number TN 48 BZ 1148 was ridden by its rider at a high speed from the opposite direction and dashed against the two wheeler of the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased Rathinakumar was thrown off from the vehicle, sustained multiple fatal injuries and succumbed to injuries. An FIR in Crime No.1 of 2022 U/s.279, 337 and 304A of IPC was registered against the first respondent’s driver by Thathangarpet Police Station, Trichy. The deceased Rathinakumar was 44 years old, and earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. as he was a heavy vehicle driver. The first petitioner is the wife, the second petitioner is the minor daughter and the third petitioner is the father of the deceased Rathinakumar, who are depending on the income of the deceased. The first respondent’s vehicle was insured with the second respondent at the time of accident. Hence, the petitioners have filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.

5.The first respondent remained exparte.

6.The 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company objected to the claim petition by contending that the rider of the first respondent was not holding a valid license at the time of accident. The accident took place due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased Rathinakumar. The deceased had ridden the two wheeler without having a valid driving license and also without wearing a helmet. Hence, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. So, the petitioners are not entitled to claim from the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company.

7.Before the Tribunal, on the petitioners' side, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 were marked. On the respondents' side, R.W.1 to R.W.5 were examined and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 were marked. In addition, Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.9 were also marked.

8.After hearing both sides and after considering the evidences, the Tribunal has passed the impugned order, dated 27.08.2024 holding that the deceased and the first respondent’s driver contributed to the accident. The Tribunal fixed 20% contributory negligence on the deceased and 80% on the first respondent’s vehicle rider. The Tribunal in its award fixed the notional monthly income at Rs.15,900/- p.m. and also took 25% future prospects and awarded a total compensation of Rs.24,07,500/- to the petitioners. After deducting 20% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.19,26,000/- to the petitioners/claimants and that the second respondent was directed to deposit the awarded amount and further directed to recover the same from the first respondent by filing a separate application.

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 the deceased Rathinakumar was holding a heavy vehicle license and he was the owner and driver of the vehicle. P.W.3 eye witness clearly deposed that both two wheelers dashed with each other and P.W.2 & P.W.3 corroborated the same. The first respondent remained exparte and his driver