- (1.) This is an appeal filed by the insurer of the offending vehicle, who figured as the second respondent before the Tribunal, against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Krishnagiri dated 01.02.2011 made in M.C.O.P No.200 of 2009, awarding a sum of Rs.7,02,000/-as compensation for the death of one Narayanappa in an alleged accident that took place at Marudandapalli diversion on the Krishnagiri Hosur road on 25.08.2007 at 18.20 hours.
(2.) Respondents 1 to 6 herein made a claim in M.C.O.P No.200 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Krishnagiri under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation for the death of Narayanappa. Munirathinamma, the first respondent is the widow of Narayanappa. Venkatesh, Krishna Babu and Srimathi are, respectively, the sons and Daughter of Late Narayanappa. Errappa and Muniamma are the parents of Late Narayanappa. They figured as claimants 1 to 6 in the M.C.O.P. Since the claimants 2 to 4 were minors, they were represented by the first claimant Munirathinamma as their next friend and guardian. Following are the averments made in the petition: On 25.08.2007, at about 18.20 hours, the deceased Narayanappa was riding a T.V.S. XL Super two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN24-V-5379 on the Soolagiri - Hosur Stretch of the National Highway. He was riding the said vehicle cautiously, observing traffic rules and keeping the left side of the road. When he was nearing Marudandapalli diversion, the driver of the car belonging to the 7th respondent herein/first respondent in the M.C.O.P, bearing Registration No.KA-02-MA-8291, which stood insured with the appellant herein/second respondent in the M.C.O.P, drove it in a rash and negligent manner in the same direction in which the deceased Narayanappa was proceeding in his two wheeler and caused the accident by hitting Narayanappa from behind. Due to the said impact, Narayanappa was thrown away from his vehicle and he sustained fatal injuries on vital organs resulting in his death on the spot. As the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the above said car by its driver, the respondent No.7 and appellant/respondents 1 and 2 in the M.C.O.P are liable to pay compensation to the the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased Narayanappa, viz., respondents 1 to 6/petitioners 1 to 6 in the M.C.O.P. The deceased was earning a sum of Rs.3,300/- per month and was contributing the entire amount to the maintenance and welfare of the family. Though the respondents 1 to 6 / claimants arrived at the figure Rs.31,23,000/- as the amount to which they would be entitled to claim as compensation, they filed the petition restricting their claim to Rs.8,00,000/- alone.
(3.) The 7th respondent herein/first respondent in the M.C.O.P, namely the owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte and the appellant/second respondent in the M.C.O.P,namely the insurer of the offending vehicle, alone contested the case by filing a counter statement containing, in brief, the following averments: The road in which the accident took place is a broad one having 4 lanes. The deceased, without keeping the correct lane for his journey in the two wheeler, suddenly tried to change the lane by crossing from the southern lane to northern lane without giving any signal. The driver of the car belonging to the 7th respondent in the appeal/the first respondent in the M.C.O.P, who did not expect the same, made his maximum effort, in vein, to avoid the accident. The accident took place solely due to the negligent driving of the two wheeler by the deceased as he was carrying huge quantity of seedling trays on the backseat of the two wheeler and also the leg space of the two wheeler. The deceased was not employed as a milk vendor and his income was not Rs.3,300/- per month, as claimed by the claimants in the M.C.O.P. The two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN24-V-5379, in which the deceased was proceeding at the time of accident, did not belong to him and the same was not in a good condition to be driven in the National Highways. The said vehicle was not covered by a valid permit and the deceased drove the vehicle without holding a valid driving licence. The deceased could not be construed to be a third party and hence, the amount could not be claimed from the insurer as compensation. The amount claimed as compensation is excessive and hence the petition as against the appellant/second respondent in the M.C.O.P should be dismissed.;