(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 01.06.2022 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1112 of 2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (In the Court of the Special District Judge, MCOP Tribunal at Salem).)

M. Dhandapani, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2022 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (In the Court of the Special District Judge, MCOP Tribunal at Salem), in M.C.O.P.No.1112 of 2019.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the dependants of the deceased Kailash Kumar filed claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.2 Crores alleging that on 12.11.2019 at about 11.00 p.m., the deceased Kailash Kumar was driving his car Wagon R bearing Registration No.GJ-27/C-1923 on the extreme left side of the Attur to Rasipuram Main Road. While going near Mangalapuram Amirtha Dairy a tanker lorry bearing Registration No.TN-29-AZ-2892/ vehicle insured with the appellant, which was going in front of the car without any indication turned the vehicle to the right side of the road. Due to the sudden turn of the tanker lorry, the rear right side of the tanker lorry hit against the car, thereby the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. After adjudication, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.78,15,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization (excluding the period of dismissal for default, if any) with costs.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that aggrieved by the negligence fixed and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed this appeal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant was examined as R.W.1 and he deposed that he drove the vehicle in a moderate speed and that the driver of the car drove the car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the rear side of the tanker lorry and in that process, he sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Though initially, the law enforcing agency registered case against R.W.1, subsequently, the law enforcing agency conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against the deceased and subsequently the charge was abated in view of the death of the deceased. However, the same was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. The learned counsel further submitted that the deceased did not possess driving licence, even then, the Tribunal fixed the entire negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant, which is liable to be interfered with.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that without any evidence, the Tribunal fixed a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month as the monthly income of the deceased including future prospects, without taking into consideration the income tax returns and awarded a sum of Rs.76,50,000/- for loss of income which is onerous and further submitted that the amount awarded under the other heads also are on the higher side.

6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the following decisions:

                   (i)The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2026 (2) TN MAC 386 (SC) [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd and others]

                   (ii)The decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court reported in 2025 (2) TN MAC 633 (DB) [IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.B.Kavya (Minor) and others]

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5/ claimants submitted that on 12.11.2019 at about 11.00 p.m., the deceased Kailash Kumar was driving his car Wagon R bearing Registration No.GJ-27/C-1923 on the extreme left side of the Attur to Rasipuram Main Road. While going near Mangalapuram Amirtha Dairy, the driver of the tanker lorry bearing Registration No.TN-29-AZ-2892/ vehicle insured with the appellant which was going in front of the car, without any indication turned the vehicle to the right side of the road. Due to the sudden turn of the tanker lorry, the rear right side of the tanker lorry hit against the car, thereby the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5/ claimants further submitted that the deceased was possessing valid driving licence and the same was marked as Ex.P.15. And Ex.X.2. The learned counsel further submitted that the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant was examined as R.W.1 and inorder to prove the negligence on the part of R.W.1, FIR was marked as Ex.P.1. Apart from that, P.W.2 eye witness was also examined and P.W.2 deposed that he was the occupant of the car driven by the deceased. Due to tired, he was taking rest at the backside seat. At that time, R.W.1 who drove the tanker lorry in a rash and negligent manner, without any indication turned right side, due to which, the accident took place. To disprove the negligence on the part of R.W.1 no independent eye witness was examined and R.W.1 is the interested witness and further submitted that except the evidence of R.W.1, no independent evidence is available to fix the negligence as against the deceased.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5/ claimants further submitted that the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased only on the basis of income tax return assessed in favour of the deceased exhibit Ex.P.14, which warrants no interference.

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

11. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and exhibits Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 and Ex.X.1 and Ex.X.2 were marked. On the side of the appellant Insurance Company two witnesses were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and one exhibit Ex.R.1 was marked.

12. Perusal of records reveal that on 12.11.2019 at about 11.00 p.m., the deceased Kailash Kumar was driving his car Wagon R bearing Registration No.GJ-27/C-1923 on the extreme left side of the Attur to Rasipuram Main Road. While going near Mangalapuram Amirtha Dairy, the driver of the tanker lorry bearing Registration No.TN-29-AZ-2892/ vehicle insured with the appellant which was going in front of the car, without any indication turned the vehicle to the right side of the road. Due to the sudden turn of the tanker lorry, the rear right side of the tanker lorry hit against the car, thereby the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

13. Inorder to prove the negligence on the part of R.W.1, FIR was marked as Ex.P.1. Apart from that, P.W.2 eye witness was also examined and P.W.2 deposed that he was the occupant of the car driven by the deceased. R.W.1 drove the tanker lorry in a rash and negligent manner and without any indication turned right side, due to which, the accident took place. To disprove the negligence on the part of R.W.1, no independent eye witness was examined and R.W.1 is the interested witness. Except the evidence of R.W.1, no independent evidence is available to fix the negligence as against the deceased. Without examining any independent eye witness, the appellant questioning the negligence aspect is not sustainable one.

14. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal on the basis of Ex.P.14 – income tax return assessed in favour of the deceased, fixed a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month as the monthly income of the deceased including future prospects, which need not be interfered with. In the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal after considering all the factual aspects, awarded compensation which is just and reasonable and the same warrants no interference.

15. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is not applicable to the present case on hand. The decision cannot be applied universally and it can be applied only on the basis of the facts of each and every case.

16. The civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 01.06.2022 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (In the Court of the Special District Judge, MCOP Tribunal at Salem), in M.C.O.P.No.1112 of 2019, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.