(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. Subbiah, J) Both these appeals are filed by the Insurance Company against the common judgment dated 23.01.2018 made in M.C.O.P. No. 155 of 2016 and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2/13 CMA Nos. 3776 & 3778 of 2019 M.C.O.P. No. 176 of 2013 respectively on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Villupuram in so far as it relates to fixing 50% of liability on their part as also the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants.

2. Before the Tribunal, two claim petitions were filed and they are MCOP No. 627 of 2011 (Re-numbered as MCOP No. 155 of 2016) and MCOP No. 27 of 2012 (re-numbered as MCOP No. 176 of 2013). In MCOP No. 155 of 2016 the injured Arumugam was the claimant. The legal heirs of the deceased Murugan are the claimants in MCOP No. 176 of 2013.

3. The averments in the claim petitions were identical and common. As per the claim petitions, the claimant in MCOP No. 155 of 2016 namely Arumugam and the deceased Murugan were travelling in a Tata Sumo Vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 32 S 2323 along with four others from Kalvarayan Hills to Thiyagadurgam. When the vehicle was nearing R.S. Garden, the driver of the Tata Sumo drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Tractor bearing Registration No. TN 32 S 5590 attached with a Trailor bearing Registration No. TN 32 X 2560. In the impact, one of the occupants of the Car namely Murugan died on the spot and the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3/13 CMA Nos. 3776 & 3778 of 2019 other occupant Arumugam sustained grievous injury. It is in those circumstances, the two claim petitions came to be filed before the Tribunal. While the injured Arumugam filed the Claim Petition claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, the legal heirs of the deceased Murugan have filed the Claim Petition claiming Rs.58 lakhs as compensation. Both the Claim Petitions have been filed by contending that the accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Sumo Car which was insured with the second respondent in the claim petition. In the claim petition, the owner of the Tractor and Trailer as well as their insurer (appellant herein) were also arrayed as respondents.

4. Both the Claim Petitions were opposed by the appellant-Insurance Company by filing a counter affidavit before the Tribunal. According to the appellant/fourth respondent in the claim petition, even in the claim petition, the claimants have stated that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Sumo Car, which was insured with the second respondent in the claim petition. Therefore, the entire liability has to be fixed only on the first respondent - owner of the Tata Sumo Car or it's insurer, the second respondent in the claim petition. The appellant-insurance Company also denied the age, occupation, income and other particulars https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4/13 CMA Nos. 3776 & 3778 of 2019 furnished in the respective claim petitions and prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions.

5. Before the Tribunal, in order to prove the averments in the Claim Petitions, Sivabakkiyam, the wife of deceased Murugan was examined as PW1. Arumugam, one of the injured occupants of the car examined himself as PW2 and one Prasannakumar was examined as PW3. Exs. P1 to P13 were also filed as documents on the side of the claimants. On behalf of the respondents, Murugan, the driver of the Tractor and Trailor was examined as RW1 besides three other witnesses were examined as RW2 to 4. Exs. R1 to R4 were also marked on the side of the respondents. The Tribunal on analysing the oral and documentary evidence, particularly, PW2, one of the occupants of the Car and an injured claimant as well as RW1, driver of the Tractor, concluded that the driver of the sugar-cane laden Tractor cum Trailer driven by RW1 and the driver of the Tata Sumo have equally contributed for the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the second and fourth respondents in the claim petition, being the Insurance Companies of the vehicles involved in the accident, to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal also given liberty to the second respondent before the Tribunal, being the Insurance Company to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the Tata Sumo Car bearing https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5/13 CMA Nos. 3776 & 3778 of 2019 Registration No. TN 32 S 2323 on the ground that there is violation of policy condition inasmuch as there were 7 occupants in the car at the time of accident, which is more than the permitted seating capacity.

6. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.53,79,550/- in MCOP No. 176 of 2013 as compensation for the death of the deceased Murugan and Rs.20,000/- for the injuries suffered by the claimant in MCOP No. 155 of 2016. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as also the fixation of liability, the present appeals are filed by the appellant/fourth respondent in the claim petitions.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that one of the occupants of the Car filed MCOP No. 38 of 2012 and the amount awarded thereof has been paid by the insurer of the TATA Sumo Car. The order dated 02.12.2015 passed in MCOP No. 38 of 2012 was marked as Ex.R1. While so, in the very same accident, in respect of the claimants in these appeals, the Tribunal directed the appellant insurance Company as well as the Insurer of the Tractor to jointly and severally pay the compensation. When once the insurer of the Tata Sumo paid the compensation https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6/13 CMA Nos. 3776 & 3778 of 2019 amount to the claimant in MCOP No. 38 of 2012, who sustained injuries in the very same accident, the Tribunal ought to have directed the insurer of the Tata Sumo Car to pay the entire compensation amount to the claimants in these appeals. Furthermore, the first information report and the charge sheet have been filed against the driver of the Tata Sumo who has caused the accident. In any event, when once the insurer of the Tata Sumo admitted their liability and paid the compensation amount to the injured in MCOP No. 38 of 2012, the insurer of the Tata Sumo is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the claimants in these appeals as well.

8. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company that the Tribunal ought to have relied on the Postmortem report for computation of age of the deceased instead of relying the other documentary evidence. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance company, the age reckoned by the Tribunal is not on the basis of any documentary evidence and therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in computing the compensation amount, on the basis of the documents filed by the claimants in MCOP No. 176 of 2013.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 7/13 CMA Nos. 3776 & 3778 of 2019

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that MCOP No. 176 of 2013 was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Murugan. The deceased was employed as Junior Engineer, Grade-II in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thyagadurgam at the time of his death. The salary slip of the deceased was marked as Ex.P4. The salary certificate issued to the deceased was marked as Ex.P12. As per Ex. P4 salary slip, the deceased was earning a salary of Rs.26,221/- per month. The Tribunal by adding half of the salary to the tune of Rs.13,110/- arrived at the monthly loss of earning at Rs.39,331/-. Out of this amount, 3/4th of salary was deducted towards personal expenses. By adopting multiplier '15', the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.53,09,550/- towards loss of income. In all, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.53,79,550/- to the legal heirs of the deceased, which cannot be said to be exorbitant. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, such amount awarded by the Tribunal is based on oral and documentary evidence and it calls for no interference by this Court. The learned counsel for the respondent, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeals.

10. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the documentary evidence. On the fateful date of accident namely 06.11.2011 at 20.00 hours, four persons were travelling in a Tata Sumo Car bearing https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8/13 CMA Nos. 3776 & 3778 of 2019 Registration No. TN 2 S 2323. The first respondent in the claim petition was the owner of the said Car, while the second respondent is its insurer. At that time, a sugar-cane laden Tractor cum Trailer owned by the third respondent in the claim petition and insured with the appellant/fourth respondent in the claim petition, came in the opposite direction. It is stated that the driver of the Tata Sumo Car had driven it in a rash and negligent manner. It is also stated that the driver of the Tractor cum Trailer had severed to the left side of the road to avert any collusion however, the driver of the Tata Sumo Car had dashed it. Thus, there was a head on collusion in which two vehicles collided. In the impact, the deceased Murugan, one of the occupants of the Car, died on the spot. The other occupant Arumugam sustained grievous injuries. One another person Ramkumar had also sustained injuries in the very same accident. The said Ramkumar has filed MCOP No.38 of 2012 in which an award was passed on 02.12.2015 directing the insurer of the Tata Sumo Car to pay the compensation. Accordingly, the insurer of the Tata Sumo Car has also paid the entire compensation amount by admitting their liability.

11. The Tribunal, on considering the above facts, has concluded that since it was a head on collision, the contribution of both the vehicles cannot be mitigated and therefore, the Tribunal has fixed the liability on the insurer of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 9/13 CMA Nos. 3776 & 3778 of 2019 both the vehicles and directed them to pay the compensation amount jointly. Further, the Tribunal has given liberty to the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, second respondent in the claim petition to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the Tata Sumo Car bearing Registration No. TN 22 S 2323 on a finding that there is a violation of conditions of policy by the owner of the Tata Sumo Car in allowing 7 persons to travel in the car which is more than the permitted seating capacity. Thus, the Tribunal has taken into account the liability on the part of the driver of the Tata Sumo Car as well. As it was a head-on-collision, the Tribunal directed both the insurer to pay the compensation amount, rightly. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has, without any evidence or discussion, fastened the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company. It is also to be mentioned that merely because the insurer of the Tata Sumo Car had paid the compensation to one of the injured Ramkumar under Ex.R1, it will not be a ground for the appellant Insurance Company to contend that the entire liability has to be fastened only on the owner and insurer of the Tata Sumo Car. We find that the Tribunal is right in directing both the insurer of the vehicles to pay the compensation amount to the claimants in these appeals. While so, we find no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal in so far as it relates to fastening the liability on the insurer of the vehicles involved in the accident. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 10/13 CMA Nos. 3776 & 3778 of 2019

12. As regards quantum of compensation, the appellant-Insurance Company is not seriously disputing the compensation of Rs.20,000/- awarded in favour of the claimant in MCOP No. 155 of 2016. At the same time, the compensation of Rs.53,09,550/- awarded in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased in MCOP No. 176 of 2013 is opposed by the appellant Insurance Company on very many grounds.

13. The contention of the counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company is that for reckoning the age of the deceased in MCOP No. 176 of 2013, the Tribunal ought to have taken into account the postmortem report given by the Doctor instead of going by the other documentary evidence. We see no reason to accept this submission of the counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company. The age assessed by a Doctor can seldom be reckoned for determination of age in the absence of any other documentary evidence. In the present case, the claimants in MCOP No. 176 of 2013 have marked salary slip under Ex.P4, death certificate under Ex.P8, Legal Heir Certificate under Ex.P9 and salary certificate under Ex.P12. These documents filed on behalf of the claimants can be taken note of to assess the age of the deceased. The Tribunal, accordingly, had taken note of the age of the deceased as 39 and applied the correct multiplier to award a sum of Rs.53,09,550/- as loss of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 11/13 CMA Nos. 3776 & 3778 of 2019 income. We also find that the compensation awarded in MCOP No. 176 of 2013 under non-pecuniary heads are also fair and reasonable. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

14. In the result, we confirm the common Judgment and Decree dated 23.01.2018 made in M.C.O.P. No. 155 of 2016 and M.C.O.P. No. 176 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Villupuram. Resultantly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. No costs.

(R.P.S.J.,) (C.S.N.J.,) 05-11-2020 rsh To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court) Villupuram

2. The Section Officer Vernacular Records Section High Court, Madras https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 12/13 CMA Nos. 3776 & 3778 of 2019 R. SUBBIAH, J and C. SARAVANAN, J rsh CMA Nos. 3776 & 3778/2019 05-11-2020 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 13/13