High Court upholds tribunal's award for fatal accident due to rash driving, confirming reasonable compensation quantum.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)

This Appeal is taken up for hearing at the time of admission itself.

2. This Appeal has been filed by the appellant – Insurance Company against the award dated 25.10.2024 made in M.C.O.P.No.782 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, Ponneri.

3. The petitioners filed M.C.O.P.No.782 of 2014 claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation and restricted the claim compensation for Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of one Thiru. Jalendran, who died in the road accident that took place on 10.07.2013.

4. According to the petitioners, on 10.07.2013 at about 7.30 P.M., while the deceased, Jalendran, was travelling as a pillion rider in a Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-20-BH-0577, proceeding towards Rajammal Marriage Hall, Thamaraipakkam, Thiruvallur Road, the driver of the said Motorcycle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and upset the motorcycle. As a result, the victim sustained fatal grievous injuries and died in the hospital on 16.07.2013. The petitioners contended that the 1st respondent, being the owner of the offending Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-20-BH-0577, and the 2nd respondent, being the insurer thereof, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners together with interest and costs.

5. The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, was called absent and was set ex-parte on 04.04.2018.

6. The 2nd respondent – Insurance Company filed a counter affidavit and denied the validity of vehicle records, the driving license of the driver, and the insurance coverage of the 1st respondent's vehicle. They claimed that the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-20-BH-0577, and that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. It was further denied that the said motorcycle was insured with the 2nd respondent for the relevant period and that it possessed valid transport documents such as RC, Permit, Fitness Certificate, and tax. The age, occupation, monthly income of the deceased, and the place, date, and time of accident were denied, and the petitioners were put to strict proof of the same. The compensation amount and interest claimed by the petitioners were stated to be highly excessive and it was prayed that the claim petition should be dismissed against the 2nd respondent with cost.

7. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner examined herself as PW-1 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked.

8. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1.Whether the accident was taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the 1^st respondent motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TN-20-BJ-0577 or on the part of the deceased?

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation for the accident? If so, what is the quantum? From whom?

3.To what other relief the petitioners are entitled?

9. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent. It is not in dispute that the 1^st respondent’s vehicle was not insured with the 2^nd respondent at the time of the accident and therefore, held that the 1^st respondent being the owner and the 2^nd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. T