R. Mala, J.

The civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of fair and decretal order dated 3.12.2007 made in M.C.O.P. Nos.137 and 138 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Cheyyar.

2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: Selvamani and Annamalai are the petitioners in M.C.O.P. Nos. 137 and 138 of 2003. On 7.9.2002, at about 7.30 p.m..B while Selvamani was riding Hero Honda bearing registration No. TN 25-X 6561, which was belonging to respondent No.11 and insured with respondent No.2, along with Annamalai as pillion rider on Cheyyar-Vandavasi Road, at that time, one boy who was riding cycle suddenly crossed the road, due to which the two-wheeler dashed against the cyclist and the petitioners fell down and sustained injuries. The case has been registered in Crime No. 794 of 2002 under sections 279 and 337, Indian Penal Code, on the file of Cheyyar Police Station.

3. At the time of accident, Selvamani, petitioner in M.C.O.P. No. 137 of 2003, was aged about 20 years and he was a rice and paddy merchant and thereby earning a sum of Rs. 8,000 per month. Since he has sustained grievous injuries, which led to permanent disability, he claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000.

4. At the time of accident, Annamalai, petitioner in M.C.O.P. No. 138 of 2003, was aged about 35 years and he was a mason by profession and thereby earning a sum of Rs. 5,000 per month. Since he has sustained grievous injuries, which led to permanent disability, he claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000.

5. The insurance company, respondent No. 2, filed a detailed counter disputing the petitioners age, avocation and their income. In para 7 of the counter, it was specifically mentioned that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent act of Selvamani-petitioner, who suffered minor injury. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Further, he disputed the nature of injuries, period of treatment, percentage of disability and loss of earning power and prayed for dismissal of the petitions.

6. The Tribunal after considering oral and documentary evidence of PW 1 to PW 3 and RW 1 and Exhs. PI to P25 and R1 to R3 awarded a sum of Rs. 91,685 and Rs. 91,690 respectively payable by both the respondents, against which the present appeals have been preferred by the insurance company, respondent No. 2.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that Selvamani, respondent No. 1 in C.M.A. No. 3431 of 2008, who drove the two-wheeler, alone is responsible for the accident. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the compensation, since the petitioner Selvamani is a wrongdoer. Therefore, he prayed for allowing of this appeal. To substantiate his argument, he relied upon the decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal, 2007 ACJ 1284 (SC).

8. Refuting the same, learned counsel for petitioners, respondent No. 1, submitted that in respect of C.M.A. No. 3432 of 2008, since the petitioner was the pillion rider, the appeal itself is liable to be dismissed. In respect of C.M.A. No. 3431 of 2008, petitioner Selvamani was the rider of two-wheeler and the accident occurred only due to sudden crossing of the road by the cyclist. Hence, the negligence is not on the part of the rider of two-wheeler. Therefore, the Tribunal correctly awarded compensation and hence, it does not warrant any interference. To substantiate his argument, he relied upon Bhagyalakshmi v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009 (1) TN MAC 659 (SC).

9. Considered the rival submissions made on both sides and the materials available on record.

10. In respect of M.C.O.P. No. 137 of 2003, the petitioner Selvamani is the rider of two-wheeler and he was examined as PW 1. In respect of M.C.O.P. No. 138 of 2003, the petitioner Annamalai is the pillion rider and he was examined as PW 2. Even if the court comes to the conclusion that the rider of the two-wheeler is responsible for the negligence, the ow