Negligence was established through credible eyewitness testimony, leading to compensation being justly awarded based on the deceased's income and dependency.

(Order of the Court was made by P.DHANABAL,J.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred as against the fair and decreetal order, dated 17.04.2024, passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Additional District Court, Madurai, in M.C.O.P. No.174 of 2021.

2. The appellant in the present appeal is the second respondent in the main claim petition. Respondents 1 to 4 herein have filed the claim petition as against the appellant / Insurance Company, claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of one Muthuselvam, who is the husband of first petitioner and father of the petitioners 2 and 3 and son of the fourth petitioner therein. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.52,91,952/- towards compensation to the petitioners with interest of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the fair and decreetal order passed by the Tribunal, the second respondent Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

3. The appellant herein after referred to as second respondent and the respondents 1 to 4 herein after referred to as the petitioners and fifth respondent herein after referred to as first respondent.

4. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that the first petitioner is wife, second and third petitioners are children, fourth petitioner is mother of the deceased Muthuselvam. On 10.09.2020 at about 13.35 hours, the said Muthuselvam rode the motor cycle bearing registration No.TN 13 J 4323 and when he was riding near Vadipatty main road, the rider of the first respondent's vehicle rode the motor cycle bearing registration No.TN 13 J 4323 in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction and dashed against the vehicle of the said Muthuselvam. Due to the said accident, the said Muthuselvam, thrown out from the motor cycle and sustained multiple injuries all over the body and immediately, he was taken to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, where he reported dead. The accident took place only on the negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle, which hit against the motor cycle of the deceased. At that time of accident, the deceased was aged about 41 years and was working as Junior Bailiff at District Munsif Court, Vadipatti and received Rs.31,936/- per month as salary. Therefore, the petitioners claimed Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation.

5. The first respondent, who is owner of the vehicle, had not contested the case. However, the second respondent / Insurance Company, where the first respondent insured his vehicle, on filing counter, denied the averments made in the claim petition. According to the second respondent, the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the deceased and the rider of the first respondent is no way responsible for the accident and thereby, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. Further, the petitioners have to prove the age, income, dependency of the deceased and the claim of the petitioners, is too high. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Upon hearing both sides and on perusal of records and pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following points for determination:

1.Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the first respondent's two wheeler? Who is liable to pay the compensation?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the claim as prayed for?

If so, what is the quantum?

3.What other reliefs the petitioners are entitled to?

7. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioners, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidences were adduced.

8. The Tribunal, after considering the evidences on both sides,