JUDGMENT :

(Heard Video Conference)

1. CMA No.2479 of 2015 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging its liability to pay the compensation to the first respondent claimant under the impugned award dated 28.01.2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Namakkal in MCOP No.408 of 2013.

2. The claimant, who is the first respondent in CMA No.2479 of 2015 has challenged the very same impugned award seeking for enhancement of compensation in CMA No.2101 of 2016.

3. The Tribunal under the impugned award dated 28.01.2015, directed the Insurance Company to pay the claimant a compensation of Rs.1,44,500/- together with interest and costs as detailed hereunder :-

Heads Amount awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)

22% Disability compensation 44000

Medical expenses as per bills 25537

Transportation charges 5000

Nutrition 10000

Pain and suffering 25000

Loss of amenities 25000

Attender charges 10000

Total 1,44,537

Rounded off 1,44,500

4. Heard Ms.I. Malar, learned counsel for the appellant in CMA No.2479 of 2015/1st respondent in CMA No.2101 of 2016 and Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel, learned counsel for the 1st respondent in CMA No.2479 of 2015/appellant in CMA No.2101 of 2016. Remaining respondents in both appeals were set ex-parte before the Tribunal, hence notice to them are dispensed with.

5. This Court has perused the materials and evidence available on record before the Tribunal.

6. The Insurance Company has challenged the award on the ground that the Tribunal has erroneously held them liable to compensate the claimant despite there being no documentary evidence to show that the accident had occurred only due to the negligent riding of the bike bearing Registration No.TN-28-AE-0790 by its rider in which the claimant Deena Dhayalan was a pillion rider. The Insurance Company has not challenged the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. With regard to the contention raised by the Insurance Company in CMA No.2479 of 2015 is concerned, the same has been duly considered by the Tribunal under the impugned award.

7. Before the Tribunal, the claimant has filed 12 documents which were marked as Exs.P1 to P12 and three witnesses were examined on his side viz., the claimant himself as PW1, the Doctor who examined him as PW2 and an eye witness to the accident as PW3. On the side of the Insurance Company, no document was filed before the Tribunal and only a witness viz., Tirumathi Vimala, the Sub Inspector of Police was examined as RW1.

8. Before the Tribunal, the case of the claimant as seen from the claim petition as well as from the oral evidence deposed by PW1 and PW3 is that on 22.05.2012 at about 6.45 p.m., when the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider in a Passion Pro motor bike bearing Registration No.TN-28-AH-7264 on the left side of the road in the East to West direction, another motor bike viz., Hero Honda Splendor plus bearing Registration No.TN-28-AE-0790 coming from the opposite direction dashed against the motor bike bearing Registration No.TN-28-AH-7264, due to the rash and negligent driving by the rider of the motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-28-AE-0790. The motor bike bearing Registration TN-28-AE-0790 was insured with the appellant in CMA No.2479 of 2015. Even though the FIR was registered only against the motor bike in which the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider viz., the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-28-AH-7264, the said FIR was registered not at the behest of the claimant but at the behest of the brother of the deceased Easwaramurthy, who was the rider of the vehicle bearing TN-28-AH-7264. A consistent stand has been taken by the claimant before the Tribunal that only the opposite vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-28-AE-0790 was at fault, which resulted in the accident.

9. Before the Tribunal, the brother of the deceased Easwaramurthy who lodged a complaint which is the basis of the FIR was also not examined as a witness. Even though the Insurance Company as seen from the impugned award