The evidence of an injured eyewitness in a motor accident claim holds superior evidentiary value, and where an insurance company fails to rebut the claimant's evidence, the tribunal's finding of negligence must be upheld. Additionally, notional income must be realistically assessed based on the nature of the deceased's occupation.

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was made by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.)

The appellant–Insurance Company, which was arrayed as the second respondent in the award dated 05.06.2024 passed in M.C.O.P. No.296 of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Karur, has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging both the finding on negligence and the consequential award fastened upon it.

2.Fact of the case:

2.1. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the claimants in MCOP No. 296 of 2021. The claim petition was filed stating that on 24.08.2020, the deceased was riding a two-wheeler along with the first and second respondents on the Karur–Coimbatore Highway, proceeding from west to east. At that time, the appellant-insured vehicle, which was proceeding ahead of the two-wheeler, suddenly, without giving any signal and in a rash and negligent manner, took a right turn. As a result, the deceased, who was riding the two-wheeler, dashed against the insured vehicle, resulting in the accident. In the said occurrence, the deceased succumbed to injuries, while the respondents 1 and 2 sustained injuries.

2.2. A case was registered by the jurisdictional police in Crime No. 384 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. In respect of the same accident, three claim petitions were filed, namely MCOP Nos. 295, 296 and 297 of 2021. During the pendency of the proceedings, MCOP Nos. 295 and 297 of 2021 were settled before the Lok Adalat, and the present appeal has been filed against MCOP No. 296 of 2021, which relates to the death of the husband of the first respondent.

2.3. The Insurance Company filed a counter statement denying the manner of accident as stated in the claim petition and contended that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident and, therefore, the claimants are not entitled to compensation. The age, occupation, and income of the deceased were also disputed.

2.4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 was examined as an eyewitness and Exhibits P1 to P17 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

3.Finding of the Tribunal:

The Tribunal, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, particularly relying on the testimony of P.W.1, fixed the negligence on the driver of the insured vehicle and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 29,73,309/- in the following heads.

4.Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:

4.1. Challenging the said award, the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal failed to properly consider the aspect of negligence and erred in not fixing contributory negligence on the deceased, who allegedly rode the two-wheeler without due care and caution. It was further submitted that, though no contra evidence was adduced, the materials available on record, particularly Exs. P1 and P2, would indicate that the deceased himself contributed to the accident.

4.2. The learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that the appeal has not been preferred on the quantum of compensation.

5.Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants:

5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal, after prop