J U D G M E N T

The matter is heard through “Video-Conferencing”.

2.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award dated 19.10.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No.493 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee.

3.The appellant is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.493 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee. He filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 02.04.2014.

4.According to the appellant, on 02.04.2014 at about 07.30 A.M., while he was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 22 CD 9181 on Kundrathur – Thiruneermalai road, near Thuthi Suvesesha Thirusabai Church, the driver of the car bearing Registration No.TN 11 D 7882 belonging to the 1st respondent drove the car from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, endangering public safety and dashed against the motorcycle rode by the appellant and caused the accident. In the accident, the appellant sustained multiple grievous injuries all over his body. Therefore, he filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him against the respondents, being the owner and insurer of the car respectively.

5.The 1st respondent-owner of the car remained exparte before the Tribunal.

6.The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, being the insurer of the car filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the appellant. According to the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, the 1st respondent has not intimated anything about the accident to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent denied that the car belonging to the 1st respondent was insured with them at the time of accident and there was no insurance policy for the 1st respondent's car. The 2nd respondent denied the manner of accident. According to 2nd respondent, at the time of accident, the driver of the car belonging to 1st respondent drove the same by following the road traffic rules and the appellant who was a student rode the motorcycle belonging to his father at the time of accident, suddenly gone to the wrong side and got skidded from his vehicle, fell down in front of the car and invited the accident. Therefore, the accident has not occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car belonging to 1st respondent, whereas, the accident has occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the appellant. Further, the appellant was not possessing valid driving license at the time of accident and he only contributed negligence to the accident. The appellant has to prove that the driver of the 1st respondent's car was possessing valid driving license and the 1st respondent's car was having valid insurance policy, R.C.Book and other vehicular records at the time of accident. The appellant has to prove his age, avocation, income, nature of injuries and disability suffered by him by producing valid documents. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the appellant is highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

7.Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1, Dr.Subramanian was examined as P.W.2 and 12 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P12. On behalf of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, one R.Aiyyanar, Investigation Officer was examined as R.W.1 and two documents were marked as Exs.R1 & R2.

8.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by both the driver of the car belonging to the 1st respondent as well as due to rash and negligent riding by the appellant and fixed 80% negligence on the part of the driver of the car belonging to 1st respondent and 20% negligence on the part of the appellant and awarded a sum of Rs.9,28,750/