Insurance liability depends on driving negligence proof.

For Appellant : Mr.K.Vinod For R1 to R3 : M/s.M.Malar For R4 : No appearance JUDGMENT The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved over the negligence fixed on the driver of the first respondent and also challenging the quantum of compensation granted to the claimants as per the award dated 01.11.2021, made in M.C.O.P.No.29 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. The case of the claimants is as follows:

The respondents 1 to 3 herein are the claimants who have filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the death of one Vignesh, aged about 23 years in the road accident taken place on 14.07.2016 at about 9.30 hours. According to them, the deceased Vignesh riding a two-wheeler bearing registration No.TN 25 AP 0703 on Tiruvannamalai to Tindivanam road, near So.Puthur Village the driver of the Hyundai Creta Car bearing registration No.TN 03 S 0609 belongs to the first respondent therein came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the two wheeler. Due to which, the deceased sustained multiple injuries on his head, left eyebrow, right hand knee and died on the spot. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kilpennathur Police Station registered a case in Crime No.247/2016 under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC against the driver of the Hyundai Creta Car. Hence, the claimants have filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.50 lakhs.

4. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte and the Insurance Company contested the claim questioning the negligence as well as the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads. The first and second claimants examined themselves as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Exs.P1 to P18 were marked. On the side of the respondents, Special Sub Inspector of Police, Kilpennathur Police Station was examined as R.W.1 and the driver/owner of the offending vehicle was examined as R.W.2 and no documents marked. 5. After considering the evidence the Tribunal held that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent Hyundai Car and awarded a sum of Rs.30,96,600/- as compensation to the claimants.

6. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has filed this present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

7. The Insurance Company filed this appeal on the ground that the deceased was also responsible for causing the accident. However, the Tribunal had failed to appreciate the evidence adduced on the side of the Insurance Company more particularly the evidence of the driver of the car. He further submitted that the compensation awarded based on the notional monthly income fixed as Rs.20,000/- per month and the same is also on the higher side.

Hence, he prayed to set aside the said finding and to modify the same.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that after considering the evidence placed on record, the Tribunal has awarded compensation and the same is just and fair and the same is not excessive and prays to confirm the award.

9. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and also perused the materials available on record.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company submitted that they examined the driver of the Hyundai car as R.W.2 and contended that the two-wheeler was driven in a rash and negligent manner and that the negligent act of the rider of the two-wheeler / deceased was responsible for the accident. It also placed on record