JUDGEMENT

The Insurance Company has challenged the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Villupuram in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.77 of 2016. The parties are referred to in the same rank as before the Tribunal. The challenge is on three grounds.

(a)Contributory negligence.

(b)No nexus between death and injuries.

(c)The driver of the 1st respondent vehicle did not possess valid driving licence.

2. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that the accident was a head on collision and therefore the Tribunal ought to have apportioned the liability equally between vehicles, in which the deceased was travelling and the motor cycle belonging to the 1st respondent, which had come from the opposite direction.

3. The deceased was travelling pillion in the 3rd respondent's motor bike bearing registration No.PY 01 AL 3462, proceeding in the Kuyalapalayam road towards North to South direction and when they was nearing Kuyalapalayam Iyyanar Temple, the 1st respondent's motor bike bearing registration no. PY 01 BD 8395 driven in a rash and negligent manner and coming in the opposite direction dashed against the motor bike in which the deceased was riding.

4. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company would contend that when the same is nothing but an head on collision the Tribunal below has erred in fastening the entire liability on the 1st respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company had pleaded that there is no nexus between the death and injuries, since the petitioners had failed to file official medical notes from the Hospital, where the deceased was admitted and had died. It is seen that the deceased had sustained injuries to the Spinal Cord and was finding it very difficult to walk.

6. A perusal of Ex.P.3, Discharge Slip from Indira Gandhi Government Hospital and Postgraduate Institute, Puducherry shows that the deceased was suffering Traumatic Quadriparesis and Paralytic Ileus.

7. A perusal of Ex.P.4, Discharge against medical advice, would show that the deceased had suffered a traumatic disc proplase with cord injury with quadriplegia with bowel and bladder involvement. The deceased was suffering from a pain in the neck and unable to move his lower and upper limbs. The deceased had to undergo surgery on the spine.

8. A perusal of Ex.P.7, Discharge Summary would show that the deceased was unable to move freely. The deceased was initially treated for a day i.e., from 21.03.2011 till 22.03.2011. Thereafter, he was in the Hospital from 11.04.2011 to 21.04.2011 and the discharge summary Ex.P.7, does not indicate that he has improved.

9. These documents would clearly indicate that the deceased has suffered serious injuries to his Spinal cord and there is nothing to indicate that the deceased has got well.

10. The Insurance Company has not been able to establish that the deceased had recovered and thereafter he had passed away. However, in the instant case, it is seen that the deceased had died while continuing treatment. Therefore, the death is a direct result of the accident.

11. As regards the argument of the Insurance Company that there is no driving licence for the driver of the 1st respondent vehicle, the Tribunal has also observed that the driving licence of the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle has not been produced for the scrutiny of the Court.

12. Heard the learned counsels and perused the records.

13. From the manner in which the accident has occurred and which has not been refuted by the others, it is clear that both the vehicles are jointly liable to compensate the deceased. Therefore, the award is apportioned equally between the 1st and 3rd respondents. 14. The Tribunal has awarded a notional income at Rs.7,000/-.

Considering the fact that the deceased was a Mason and taking into account the year of accident, the notional income is fixed at a sum of Rs.6,000/-, to which 40% is added towards future prospects. Therefore, the notional income would be a sum of Rs.8