R MAHADEVAN,J. - (1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee, in MCOP No.807 of 2011.
(2.) The case in brief, is as follows: On 30.07.2011 at about 22.00 hours, the deceased Selvaraj was riding his TVS-XL motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-02-AL-2176 from Ambattur Industrial Estate to Red Hills. A lorry bearing Regn.No.TSD 4779 belonging to the third respondent and insured with the appellant insurance company, was parked on the road without any signal, near Om Shakthi Hotel at Shanmugapuram. Since there was no signal to show that a lorry has been parked there, the deceased's vehicle dashed against the lorry and due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he died on the way to the hospital. The wife, daughter and father of the deceased, filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal, considering the materials and evidence available on record, calculated the compensation at Rs.14,72,000/-, and since the claimants restricted their claim to Rs.8,00,000/-, awarded the said sum of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition, excepting the default period from 22.04.2015 to 03.12.2015. Challenging the said judgment and decree of the Tribunal, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company.
(3.) Assailing the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company raised the following contentions: (i)the Tribunal has erred in awarding a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as claimed by the claimants, when the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act; and the Tribunal ought to have awarded only the statutory amount of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for "No Fault Liability" in respect of the involvement of lorry, though stationed on the road side. (ii)the Tribunal erred in fixing the liability on the insurance company, overlooking the facts that P.W.2 is only an interested witness and not proved to be a witness present at the scene of occurrence; Ex.P1-FIR has been registered only against the deceased; and the Case Sheet and Final Report marked as Exs.R1 and R2, respectively, also categorically stated that the deceased was rash and negligent in riding his motorcycle and dashed against the stationed lorry; and the deceased did not possess valid driving licence and he was in drunken mood at the time of accident; and in such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have ordered pay and recovery. Stating so, the learned counsel prayed to allow this appeal by setting aside the judgment impugned herein.;