JUDGMENT

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.51 of 2008 dated 29.01.2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Subordinate Court, Aruppukottai.

2. The appellant/owner of the vehicle, who was made liable to pay compensation of Rs.91,000/- (Rupees Ninety One Thousand only) with interest at 7.5% per annum to the first respondent/claimant for the disability suffered by her, consequent to an accident occurred on 15.01.2008, challenged the liability mulcted on him and also the quantum of compensation awarded at, by the Tribunal.

3. Admittedly, the appellant is the owner of the vehicle, the first respondent is the claimant and the second respondent is the Insurance Company.

4. The case of the first respondent is that on 15.01.2008 at about

09.00 a.m., the first respondent was walking towards her daughter's house at Kariapatti and while she was on the North South Aruppukottai – Kariapatti main road on the western side, the son of the appellant drove a Yamaha motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-67-C-5724 in a rash and negligent manner from the rear side of the first respondent and dashed against her and as a result of which, the first respondent fell down and sustained injuries and that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the two wheeler rider.

5. It is further case of the first respondent that after the accident, the first respondent was immediately taken to Kariapatti Government Hospital and thereafter, she was referred to Madurai Meenakshi Mission Hospital and that the first respondent was doing textile business and was earning Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month.

6. The defence of the appellant is that on 15.01.2008 at about

09.00 a.m., when the appellant's son was riding a motor cycle in a steady and careful manner, the first respondent, without observing the traffic rules and without noticing the vehicle proceeding from the rear side, suddenly crossed the road and invited the accident and as such, the first respondent alone was responsible for the accident, that the first respondent has exaggerated her injuries making to appear those simple injuries as grievous and that the compensation claimed is very high and excessive.

7. The defence of the second respondent is that the accident was occurred only due to the negligent attitude of the first respondent, that the first respondent, in a negligent manner, unexpectedly tried to cross Kariapatti main road from West to East direction and that the two wheeler rider, in order to avoid the accident, applied brake, but the first respondent fell into the vehicle and sustained injuries.

8. It is further defence of the second respondent that the rider of the Yamaha Crux bearing Registration No.TN-67-C-5724 was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident and that therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable for the claim.

9. During trial, the first respondent has examined herself as P.W.1 and medical officer-Dr.Palanivelrajan as P.W.2 and exhibited 12 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. On the side of the appellant and the second respondent, two witnesses R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and two documents Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 were marked. 2 documents have been exhibited as Court documents as Ex.X.1 and Ex.X.2.

10. The learned trial Judge, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, has passed the impugned order dated 29.01.2013 holding that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligence of the two wheeler rider and that since the appellant allowed his minor son to ride the two wheeler and thereby committed violation of insurance policy, directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.91,000/- (Rupees Ninety One Thousand only) with interest at 7.5% per annum to the first respondent and dismissed the claim as against the second respondent. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the owner of the two wheeler has preferred the p