JUDGMENT :

(Through Video Conferencing)

There is no representation on behalf of the first to fifth respondents/claimants even though the name of the counsel Mr. M. Kavikannan has been printed in the cause list. He has filed vakalat for the first to fifth respondents. This case was listed twice earlier and adjourned so that the counsel for the first to fifth respondents can appear and defend the impugned Judgment and Decree and assist the Court. However, it appears that the counsel engaged for them is not interested to protect the interest of his clients despite the case appearing twice in the list. After hearing the learned counsel for appellant insurance company it was finally reserved for passing orders.

2. The Insurance Company is the appellant in this appeal. It is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 12.04.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Judge), Tirupattur in M.C.O.P.No.133 of 2015.

3. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.17,47,500/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit to the first to fifth respondents even though they have claimed for Rs.10,00,000/- before the Tribunal.

4. The first to fifth respondents were the claimants before the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.133 of 2015. They had filed a claim petition for compensation for the death of their wife and mother Poongodi who died in an accident tragically on 07.03.2014. She was riding as a pillion rider on a motor cycle (TVS-XL Super) bearing Registration No.TN-23-BL-4249 driven by the fourth respondent who is her daughter. The said motor cycle was hit by an uninsured motor cycle (Hero Honda) bearing Registration No.TN-23-BZ-1801. Therefore, the claim petition was filed against only against the appellant, the insurer of the motor cycle (TVS-XL Super) bearing Registration No.TN-23-BL-4249.

5. The case of the appellant Insurance Company is that the Tribunal having concluded that the owner and the rider of the Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-23-BZ-1801 was rash and negligent and had caused the accident, ought not to have awarded compensation to be paid by the appellant insurer of the TVS-XL Super Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-23-BL-4249, merely because the owner the appellant had extended a comprehensive insurance cover for the owner of the aforesaid moped.

6. The Tribunal has allowed the claim petition with the following observations:-

"Point No.3

Liability:-

This tribunal for the reasons stated in Point No.1 has comes to a conclusion that the driver of the Hero Honda vehicle bearing registration No.TN 23 BZ 1801 namely Venkatesan the first respondent is responsible for the accident. Further more on perusal of Ex.P2 the RC Book the same stands in the name of the 2nd respondent. It is an admitted fact that the Hero Honda motor cycle was not insured with the any of the Insurance Company. In that situation than the 1st and 2nd respondents being the driver and the owner of the said vehicle is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

Though the 1st and 2nd respondents is liable to pay a compensation to the petitioner. It is necessary to point out that in this case the owner and insurer of the TVS XL Super bearing registration No.TN 23 BL 4249 was also added as 3rd and 4th respondent on perusal of Ex.P5 the MV Report for the said vehicle the said vehicle belongs to the 3rd respondent. On perusal of Ex.R2 is the policy for the said vehicle the same is package policy which covered the pillion riders as well. In that situation when the 4th respondent had a contract of insurance with the 3rd respondent that they will cover the pillion rider from any unfortunate incident then the 4th respondent now cannot contends that as their insured vehicle driver is not fault then they are not liable to pay the compensatio