IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.06.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN C.M.A.No.1074 of 2018

1.M.Chakkaravarthi

2.C.Rajathi .. Appellants Versus

1.Arunachala Logistics Pvt., Ltd., No.8/3/961D, IV Floor, SBI Building, Sri Nagar Colony, Hyderabad.

2.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., VI Floor, F-Block Surya Towers, Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh. .. Respondents Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, made in M.C.O.P.No.853 of 2013 dated 14.03.2016.

For Appellants : Mr.M.Selvam For Respondents For R1 : Mr.K.Vinod For R2 : Left

JUDGMENT

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, made in M.C.O.P.No.853 of 2013 dated 14.03.2016.

2. The manner of the accident, factum of the accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle are not in dispute.

Hence, the finding rendered by the Tribunal in this regard is hereby confirmed.

3. It is the case of the appellants that on 22.06.2013 at about 10.50 hours when Karthick (since deceased) was proceeding a lorry Regn.No.AP-07-TA- 1628 belonging to the 1^st respondent herein in Sandhur to Velampatty road near Velampatty Government Higher Secondary School, lost his control and dashed against the house of the Srinivasan. Hence the accident occurred, due to which, the said Karthick died on the spot. Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased namely his wife and his son filed claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

4. The appellants are the claimants seeking to challenge the award passed by the Tribunal on the ground of quantum. The 1^st respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the 2^nd respondent is the insurer of the 1^st respondent's vehicle.

5. During the trial on the side of the claimants P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.P1 to P6 were marked and on the side of the respondents no one was examined and no document was marked.

6. After going through both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had came to the conclusion that the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1^st respondent's offending vehicle and hence, fixed the liability 50:50 ratio viz., 50% against the deceased driver of the 1^st respondent's vehicle and 50% against the Insurance Company, 2^nd respondent herein and awarded compensation as follows;-

The said 50% of award amount i.e., Rs.3,89,000/- was directed to be paid by two parts i.e., Rs.2,02,000/- to be paid to the son of the deceased and Rs.1,87,000/- to be paid to the wife of the deceased by the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company. Aggrieved against the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by assessing 50% of liability, the appellant/claimants have preferred this present appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.3,89,000/- as compensation in respect of the fatal sustained by the 1^st petitioner's son. The Tribunal ought to have awarded the claim of Rs.25,00,000/- and the Tribunal failed to consider and appreciate the evidene of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The Tribunal erred in not considering the future prospects of the deceased. The Tribunal erred in concluding that the deceased income Rs.25,000/- per month when a deceased was working as Driver. He further submitted that the accident occurred during the course of employment.

Therefore, the award may be passed under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

8. In support of his contentio