IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-03-2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM C.M.A. No.1638 of 2015 And M.P.No.1 of 2015 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Manager, No.31, Sidda Veerappachetty Street, Dharmapuri District. .. Appellant/R-2 vs.

1.Venkatraman .. R-1/P-1 2.Chinnammal .. R-2/P-2 3.Minor Yuvaraj .. R-3/P-3 (Minor R-3 represented by next friend first petitioner)

4.J.Sasikumar .. R-4/R-1 5.Sureshkumar .. R-5/R-3 The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2013 passed in M.C.O.P. No.34 of 2011 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Sub Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Harur.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Arun Kumar For Respondents-1to3 : Mr.M.Selvam For Respondents-4&5 : Not Ready in Notice and set ex parte in Lower Court.

J U D G M E N T

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on hand is preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company, challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2013 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Sub-Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Harur in M.C.O.P. No.34 of 2011. 2. The accident occurred on 26.10.2011 at about 16.00 hours in Theerthamalai to Mambadi Road near Thirudan Pallam down Devil Tamarind Tree. The Kottapatty Police Station registered a case in Crime No.25 of 2011 under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC.

3. The deceased was working as a Building Mason. He was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and the legal heirs of the deceased filed claim application, claiming compensation of Rs.10 lakhs under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

4. The Tribunal adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents and the evidences.

5. The following points were formulated by the Tribunal for consideration:-

“(1) Whether the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent ?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to get any compensation ?

(3) Who is liable to pay the compensation ?

(4) What will be the quantum of compensation ?

6. Regarding the responsibility and entitlement, with reference to point Nos.1 and 2, the Tribunal examined Mr.Rajendran as PW-1 and one eyewitness Mr.Ramajayam was examined as PW-2 and Exs.P-1 to P-3 were marked. The Junior Assistant Officer of the RTO was examined as RW-1 and the Senior Assistant Officer of the second respondent/Insurance Company was examined as RW-2 and Exs.R-1 to R-6 were marked. As per the oral evidence of the petitioners, on 26.01.2011, the deceased was proceeding in his Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN-29- M-7650 was driven very slowly, carefully with observing all the rules of the road. On that day at about 16.00 hours while thus he was proceeding in Theerthamalai to Mambadi Road near Thirudanpallam Devil Tamarind Tree, at that time, the pick up van bearing Registration No.TN-23-AQ-5239 was driven by its driver on the opposite direction of the Motor Cycle in a rash and negligent manner without observing any rules of the road in high speed, he lost his control and dashed against the deceased and his Motor Cycle. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

7. With reference to the above facts, the Tribunal arrived a finding that the accident has taken place only because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent's pick up van. The first respondent/first petitioner is the father of the deceased Perumal and the second petitioner is the mother of the deceased and the third petitioner is the minor brother of the deceased Perumal. The petitioners 1 to 3 are the dependents of the deceased Perumal. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that all the claimants are entitled to get compensation.

8. With reference to Point No.3, regarding liability, the Tribunal arrived a conclusion that the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The quantum of compensation amount is also fixed and accordingly,