The court has the authority to enhance compensation if it deems the awarded amount to be inadequate based on the circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT :

R. Subbiah, J

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed u/s.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2013 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.341 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, The District Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

1. This matter is heard through Video-Conferencing.

2. For the sake of convenience, appellants herein are referred to as 'claimants' and second respondent herein is referred to as 'Insurance Company'.

3. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in and by its judgment and decree dated 28.02.2013 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.341 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, The District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, claimants have filed the present appeal.

4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

Claimants are parents and sisters of the deceased Tamilarasan. On 09.05.2012 the deceased Tamilarasan was riding pillion in a TVS Star Sport Two Wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-25-AA-9576. At about 12.30 p.m., while the two-wheeler was proceeding on the road opposite to Chengam Bus Stand, Chengam Road, Tiruvannamalai, a Lorry bearing Registration No.TN- 23-AE-2113 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler, as a result of which the rider and the deceased Tamilarasan died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was studying 1st year M.A.Economics and also doing real estate business. Hence, claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation in a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Tamilarasan.

5. Resisting the claim made by claimants, the Insurance Company had filed a detailed counter statement inter alia contending that the accident had not occurred in the manner as projected by claimants. They have also denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. To prove their claim, on the side of claimants, 3 witnesses were examined and 12 documents were marked. On the side of Insurance Company, 2 witnesses were examined and 6 documents were marked.

7. Since the legal heirs of the rider of the two-wheeler had also filed a claim petition, a joint trial was conducted in the case. On appreciation of materials and the evidence on record, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-23-AE-2113. On coming to such a finding, the Tribunal directed the Insurance Company, as insurer of the offending vehicle, to pay compensation. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,09,000/- as compensation. The break-up details are as follows:

The said sum was directed to be paid together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.

8. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for Insurance company has raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the appeal submitting that the Insurance Company had already filed two appeals in C.M.A.Nos.1198 and 1199 of 2014, one in respect of the award passed by the Tribunal in the claim petition filed by claimants and another in respect of the award passed by the Tribunal in the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased rider of the two-wheeler. Both the appeals were dismissed by the learned Single Judge under judgment dated 23.04.2014. The same will operate as res judicata to hear these appeals.

9. This Court finds that in the appeals filed by the Insurance Company, no notice was served on the respondents and the appeals were dismissed at the admission