C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUNDER MOHAN,J.)

C.M.A.No.2698 of 2021 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal in the award dated 16.10.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.163 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub-ordinate Judge, Cuddalore and C.M.A.No.1961 of 2021 is filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 16.10.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.163 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub-ordinate Judge, Cuddalore.

2.Both the appeals arise out of the same accident and same award and hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment. Parties in these appeals are hereinafter referred to by their rank in the appeal in C.M.A.No.2698 of 2021. (for the sake of convenience)

3.The Appellants filed M.C.O.P.No.163 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub-ordinate Judge, Cuddalore, claiming a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation for the death of T.Sudhanthiran, who died in the accident that took place on 15.10.2016.

4.The appellants are wife, children and parents of the deceased Sudhanthiran. It is the case of the appellants that on 15.10.2016 at about 3.00 a.m, the deceased was traveling in Maruthi Alto car bearing Registration No. TN-22-

AX-8759 driven by one Shamsudeen on the Kumbakonam - Chennai Main road NH-45. A tipper lorry bearing Registration No.TN-31-M-1801 was parked in the center of the said road near Karaimedu Mariyamman Temple, without following the traffic rules and without any parking lights. The driver of the car could not see the tipper lorry at the center of the road, since it was dark and hence dashed against the parked tipper lorry from behind. In the said impact, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and succumbed injuries on the same day. The appellants therefore filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation against the owner of the Tipper lorry and the Second Respondent /

Insurance company.

5.The First Respondent / owner of the vehicle remained exparte before the Tribunal.

6.The second respondent / insurance company filed counter denying the allegations in the claim petition. The second respondent has stated that the vehicle was parked on the road properly and further stated that a stationary vehicle cannot be held to be liable as per the Motor Vehicles Act. The second respondent also disputed the claim with regard to the income earned by the deceased and prayed for dismissing the claim petition.

7.Before the Tribunal, the appellants examined the first appellant as P.W.1 and one Shamsudeen, the driver of the car as P.W.2, and marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P.10. The respondents examined the Police Inspector as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R.1 to R.3.

8.The Tribunal on considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence held that the accident was caused on account of the negligent act of the driver of the tipper lorry and directed the second respondent / insurance company to pay the compensation of Rs.25,18,750/- to the appellants.

9.Not being satisfied with the amounts awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants have filed the appeal in C.M.A.No.2698 of 2021 seeking enhancement of compensation and the second respondent / insurance company has filed the appeal in C.M.A.No.1961 of 2021 challenging the finding on negligence and the quantum awarded by the Tribunal.

10.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent / insurance company submitted that the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector shows that the tipper lorry was damaged on the front side and therefore the version of the appellants that the car came from behind and collided with the stationary lorry cannot be accepted and as per the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, it could be a head on collision. The Inspector of Police who conducted the investigation filed a final report to the effect that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Maruthi Alto Car. T