The Court affirmed the Tribunal's findings regarding negligence and compensation, adjusting for erroneous awards.

JUDGMENT :

P. DHANABAL, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed as against the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge, Karur, in MCOP No.390 of 2017 dated 15.07.2019

2. The appellant is the second respondent in the claim petition. The respondents 1 to 6 herein have filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of one Sankar who died in a road accident. The claimants/respondents 1 to 6 have filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karur alleging that the petitioners 1 to 6 are the legal representatives of the deceased. On 13.06.2007, the deceased Sankar was driving his two wheeler bearing Reg. No. TN 45 X 5735 on Karur to Trichy main road at that time on the east of Thirukampuliyur bus stop heading to Mayanur in Karur to Trichy main road, a Jeep bearing Reg.No.TN 34 R 7291 at about 1.40 hrs came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler, as a result of which, he was thrown out of the two wheeler and sustained injuries all over his body and immediately, he was taken to Amaravathy Hospital, Karur and after first aid, he was taken to Rajaji Hospital, Madurai where he died on 22.06.2017. The deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident and he was working as a tailor and earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month and the petitioners also incurred a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards medical expenses. The accident that took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep. The second respondent is the owner of the jeep and therefore, both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

3. The second respondent filed counter denying the age, income and the manner of accident. According to the second respondent, the deceased without following the traffic rules road the two wheeler in the middle of the road and hit the jeep, thereby the rider of the two wheeler alone was responsible for the accident and the driver of the first respondent is no way responsible for the accident and therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation.

4. Based on the above said pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following points for determination:

a) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver?

b) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum?

5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioners, P.W.1 to P.W. 2 were examined and exhibits ExPs 1 to 9 were marked. On the side of the second respondent, RW1 was examined, but no document was marked.

6. After careful analysis of the evidence adduced on both sides, the Tribunal allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs. 28,83,648/- with interest @ 7.5%per annum by directing the second respondent insurer of the vehicle to deposit the amount within a period of 30 days.

7. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the second respondent who is the insurer of the vehicle, has preferred this appeal on the ground of negligence and also challenging the quantum of compensation.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the respondents 1 to 6 who are said to be the legal heirs of the deceased who died in the accident have filed this claim petition alleging that the driver of the vehicle who insured with the appellant bearing Reg.No TN 34 R 7291 dashed against him while the deceased was riding his two wheeler bearing Reg. NoTN 45 AX 5735. In fact, the accident took place due to negligence on the part of the deceased. Since the deceased was riding in a two wheeler and the four wheeler was involved in the accident, First Information Report has bee