(Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the award, dated 17.04.2024 passed in M.C.O.P. No.174 of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Additional District Court, Madurai, and allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.)

P. DHANABAL, J.

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred as against the fair and decreetal order, dated 17.04.2024, passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Additional District Court, Madurai, in M.C.O.P. No.174 of 2021.

2. The appellant in the present appeal is the second respondent in the main claim petition. Respondents 1 to 4 herein have filed the claim petition as against the appellant / Insurance Company, claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of one Muthuselvam, who is the husband of first petitioner and father of the petitioners 2 and 3 and son of the fourth petitioner therein. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.52,91,952/- towards compensation to the petitioners with interest of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the fair and decreetal order passed by the Tribunal, the second respondent Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

3. The appellant herein after referred to as second respondent and the respondents 1 to 4 herein after referred to as the petitioners and fifth respondent herein after referred to as first respondent.

4. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that the first petitioner is wife, second and third petitioners are children, fourth petitioner is mother of the deceased Muthuselvam. On 10.09.2020 at about 13.35 hours, the said Muthuselvam rode the motor cycle bearing registration No.TN 13 J 4323 and when he was riding near Vadipatty main road, the rider of the first respondent's vehicle rode the motor cycle bearing registration No.TN 13 J 4323 in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction and dashed against the vehicle of the said Muthuselvam. Due to the said accident, the said Muthuselvam, thrown out from the motor cycle and sustained multiple injuries all over the body and immediately, he was taken to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, where he reported dead. The accident took place only on the negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle, which hit against the motor cycle of the deceased. At that time of accident, the deceased was aged about 41 years and was working as Junior Bailiff at District Munsif Court, Vadipatti and received Rs.31,936/- per month as salary. Therefore, the petitioners claimed Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation.

5. The first respondent, who is owner of the vehicle, had not contested the case. However, the second respondent / Insurance Company, where the first respondent insured his vehicle, on filing counter, denied the averments made in the claim petition. According to the second respondent, the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the deceased and the rider of the first respondent is no way responsible for the accident and thereby, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. Further, the petitioners have to prove the age, income, dependency of the deceased and the claim of the petitioners, is too high. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Upon hearing both sides and on perusal of records and pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following points for determination:

               1.Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the first respondent's two wheeler? Who is liable to pay the compensation?

               2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the claim as prayed for? If so, what is the quantum?

               3.What other reliefs the petitioners are entitled to?

7. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioners, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no oral and documentary evidences were adduced.

8. The Tribunal, after considering the evidences on both sides, awarded a sum of Rs.52,91,952/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a.

9. Aggrieved by the said fair and decreetal order passed by the Tribunal, in M.C.O.P.No.174 of 2021, dated 17.04.2024, the second respondent / Insurance Company, has preferred the present appeal on the ground of liability and quantum.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the petitioners/respondents 1 to 4 have filed a petition, claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of one Muthuselvam, who died in a road accident. The appellant, who is second respondent in the claim petition and insurer of the first respondent vehicle, which involved in the accident, has denied the negligence on the part of the rider of the fifth respondent / first respondent and submitted that the evidence of P.W.1, who is said to be an eye witness is highly doubtful. However, the Tribunal, by accepting the evidence of P.W.2, fixed liability only as against the rider of the vehicle, which came in opposite side, since the deceased died in the road accident. Further, the Tribunal also awarded excess compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

11. Heard the petitioner side and perused the records.

12. Considering the nature of the appeal, this Court is inclined to dispose of the appeal at the stage of the admission itself. In this case, the appellant has preferred this appeal mainly on the ground of negligence and quantum. The accident and the involvement of the vehicles are admitted by the parties. As far as the negligence is concerned, the claimants have examined the eye witness P.W.2, who witnessed the accident. He categorically deposed the manner, in which the accident took place and about the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the fifth respondent/first respondent's vehicle. The evidence of P.W.2 has not been impeached through effective cross examination. There is no contra evidence adduced by the second respondent to rebut the evidence of claimants' side. When there is no contra evidence of the appellant/second respondent's side to rebut the evidence of P.W.2 on the negligent aspect, the evidence of P.W.2 is reliable and acceptable. Moreover, FIR has been registered as against the rider of 5th respondent/1st respondent's vehicle, which insured with the appellant/second respondent. Therefore, the claimants have amply proved the negligence on the part of the rider of 5th respondent/1st respondent's vehicle. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of P.W.2 and the documents, correctly fixed the liability on the rider of the offending vehicle. Therefore, fixing of negligence on the part of the offending vehicle that is 5th respondent/1st respondent, is in order.

13. As far as the quantum is concerned, according to the claimants, at that time of accident, the deceased was working as Junior Bailiff at District Munsif Court, Vadipatty, Madurai, and was drawn a sum of Rs. 31,936/- as monthly salary and was aged about 41 years. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased. The said aspects have not been denied by the appellant/second respondent. P.W.1 has categorically deposed about the age, income and dependency of the deceased. Pay certificate of the deceased has been marked as Ex.P.6. On careful perusal of the aforesaid document, it reveals that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.31,936/- and to prove the age of the deceased, driving license Ex.P.8 has been marked. Therefore, the claimants have proved the age and income of the deceased. The Tribunal, considering the age of the deceased, added 30% of future prospects and considering the number of dependency, ¼ of the income was deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and also adopted multiplier of 14. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) towards loss of consortium, further the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Therefore, the Tribunal has awarded the reasonable and just compensation.

14. There is no perversity or infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal warrants no interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal is deserved to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.