COMMON JUDGMENT

C.M.A.(MD)No.1573 of 2012 has been filed against the award, dated

07.01.2010, made in M.C.O.P.No.108 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the respondents 1 to 4 herein are the claimants and the fifth respondent herein is the first respondent in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.

2. C.M.A.(MD)No.1574 of 2012 has been filed against the award, dated

07.01.2010, made in M.C.O.P.No.109 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the respondents 1 to 7 herein are the claimants and the eighth respondent herein is the first respondent in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.

3. C.M.A.(MD)No.1575 of 2012 has been filed against the award, dated

07.01.2010, made in M.C.O.P.No.108 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the respondents 1 to 4 herein are the claimants and the fifth respondent herein is the first respondent in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.

4. Brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.148 of 2002 is as follows:

The deceased Balu @ Balakrishnan was a video cameraman, the deceased moorthi @ Sathyamoorthi was a video lightman and the deceased Augustine was a still photographer. All the three persons travelled in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-45-M-2388. The deceased Balu @ Balakrishnan was riding the motorcycle, the other two persons travelled as pillion riders. There was a heap of sand on the road and the motorcycle skidded and dashed against the near by Palmyra tree. The rider of the two wheeler, viz., Balu @ Balakrishnan, died on the spot and the other two persons died on the way to the hospital. The deceased-Balu @ Balakrishnan was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The petitioners are his dependents and they claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.

5. Brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.108 of 2002 is as follows:

The deceased-Moorthy @ Sathyamoorth was a video lightman. He was aged about 26 years and he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The petitioners are his dependents and they claimed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation.

6. Brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.109 of 2002 is as follows:

The deceased-Augustine was aged about 27 years and he was working as a still photographer and was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. The petitioners are his dependents and they claimed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation.

7. Brief substance of the counter filed by the Insurance Company in all the three petitions (M.C.O.P.Nos.148, 108 and 109 of 2011) is as follows:-

The date, time and place of occurrence are not correct. Three persons travelled in a motorcycle against the Motor Vehilce Rules. The rider of the motorcycle was riding the motorcycle in an intoxicated state of mind and due to overload the rider lost the control and dashed against the tree. The deceased has contributed to the accident. The age, occupation, monthly income of the deceased are all denied. The first respondent is the brother of the deceased – Balu @ Balakrishnan. The deceased Balakrishnan worked as a Labour in a building construction company, at Singapore and after the expiry of the work permit, he returned to India and he remained unemployed. The deceased persons went on a jolly ride to Kallanai. They have consumed alcohol and while returning back, due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle, they met with an accident. The Compensation claimed is too excessive.

8. On the side of the claimants, 4 witnesses were examined and 7 documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, 1 witness was examined and 2 documents were marked. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,60,000/- as compensation in M.C.O.P.No.108 of 2002, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation in M.C.O.P.No.10