The burden of proof for negligence or drunken driving rests on the insurer, and lack of substantial evidence leads to modification of compensation in motor accident claims.

Key Points: - The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenges the 50:50 negligence apportionment between the deceased and the lorry driver and the 10% deduction for the deceased’s Learner’s Licence (LLR) status, and seeks revision of compensation. (!) (!) - The court determines the burden of proof regarding drunken driving in motor vehicle accidents and reconsiders whether the deceased’s alleged drunkenness and lack of a valid licence justify liability apportionment and deductions, modifying the compensation accordingly. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Tribunal’s award is enhanced from Rs. 30,89,430 to Rs. 83,35,000, with interest at 7.5% per annum confirmed, and specific directions issued to deposit and disburse enhanced amounts. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Future pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads of compensation are recalculated, including loss of income, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and transport expenses. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced award amount within eight weeks, and the disbursement/withdrawal framework for claimants and minors is laid out. (!) (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred challenging the award, dated 08.11.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.680 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Thanjavur.

2.In the said M.C.O.P, the appellants/claimants 1 to 3 are the wife and children of the deceased-Palaniyappa. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.30,89,430/- on various heads.

3.The brief facts relevant for the consideration of the above case is that on 02.03.2017, when the deceased-Palaniappa @ Palani Ayya was proceeding in a two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-49- AQ-8217 from Boothalur – Thirukattupalli road to Vanarankudi, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TMY-7590 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two- wheeler. Due to said impact, the deceased sustained head injuries and died on 05.03.2017. Hence the appellants/claimants, as legal heirs of the deceased, has filed this claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/-.

4.Resisting the claim petition, the second respondent/Insurance Company has filed a counter affidavit contending that the accident had occurred due to the carelessness and negligence on the part of the deceased and the deceased had not possessed any valid driving licence and the quantum of compensation as claimed by the claimants is highly excessive and without any basis.

5.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P25 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and Ex.R1 was marked and also Ex.X1 to Ex.X3 were marked.

6.The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident had occurred due to the drunken driving of the deceased and also because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent and fixed the liability at 50:50. Further, the Tribunal had held that the since the deceased has not possessed valid driving licence, 10% has to be deducted towards the award amount. The Tribunal further held that the second respondent/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and had awarded a total compensation of Rs.33,62,700/- under various heads.

7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the Tribunal had erroneously held that the deceased had contributed to the accident as he was drunk at the time of accident and apportioned the liability as 50:50. The Tribunal also had erroneously deducted 10% of the compensation amount for the reason that the deceased has only LLR.

8.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record, had fixed the liability as 50:50 and also deducted 10% towards LLR awarded the compensation, which needs no interference.

9.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

10.The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred on two folds. One is challenging the deduction of the compensation by 50% on the ground of drunken driving leading to the accident and also 10% deduction of the award amount for driving the vehicle having only a Learner Licence (LLR) without the assistance of another person.

11.The deceased was 39 years old on the date of the accident and he was a B.T Assistant in a Government School. The accident occurred on 02.03.2017 at 11.00 a.m., which is a working day and in normal circumstances, a Teacher is not