The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to make proper efforts to serve notice on the parties and the absence of reasons to interfere with a well-considered award of compensation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.679 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Namakkal dated 03.01.2011.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, against the Judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.679 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Namakkal dated 03.01.2011.

2. Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant/insurance company. Though this court ordered notice by order dated 30.09.2011, it has not been served on the respondent Nos.1 and 2. R3 was set exparte before the tribunal.

3. Earlier when the matter was taken up for hearing on 16.07.2020, 06.08.2020, 15.12.2020, 09.02.2022, 02.03.2022, this Court has directed the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company to serve notice on the respondents. Thereafter, the matter stood adjourned to 16.03.2022, 30.03.2022 and 20.04.2022.

4. When the mater was taken up for hearing on 20.04.2022, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the address of the respondents 1 and 2 was not clear and later it was found that there was no such person residing in the said address in the name of the respondents/claimants. Moreover, different version has been stated in the petition and evidence about the death of Murugesan, who was injured in the accident on 29.06.2000 and subsequently died on 03.11.2000. Further, death certificate of the deceased has also not been produced. Hence, he prays to allow this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

5. On 30.03.2022, this Court directed the Registry to call for the Report from the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal in respect of M.C.O.P.No.679 of 2004 and also the entire details of the counsel who filed the claim petition on behalf of the claimants and directed to produce the same before this Court on or before 19.04.2022.

6. As per the direction of this Court dated 30.03.2022, learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal has sent a Report dated 18.04.2022. The said Report dated 18.04.2022 is extracted hereunder:

“MCOP No.679/2004 was originally filed before the Sub Court, Namakkal as MCOP No.1155 of 2001 on 06.11.2001 by Thiru. P.Rajkumar, Advocate, Namakkal on behalf of the claimants viz., Muthusamy and Chinnammal against 1.M.Ramsingh and 2) New India Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai to award compensation to the death caused to their son Murugesan in an accident and the same was received by transfer to the Principal District Court, Namakkal and taken on file and renumbered as MCOP No.679 of 2004. The vakalat of 1.Mr.P.Rajkumar, 2.Mr.P.Rajaraman, 3.Mr.K.Arasu, Advocates, 1 A-6, Trichy Main Road, Namakkal is found affixed. He further stated that the MCOP NO.679/2004 was dismissed for default on 28.03.2005 and Sec.5 of Limitation Act petition along with Or.9 R.9 CPC was filed on 07.11.2005, the same was allowed on 18.09.2009. Subsequently, MCOP NO.679/2004 was restored and the same was disposed after full trial on 03.01.2011. Aggrieved against the said order, the Insurance Company had preferred this appeal in CMA No.3148 of 2011. He further added that the address of the claimants have been mentioned as 1.Muthusamy, S/o.Rasigounder, Poondipalayam, Andapuram and Post, Namakkal Taluk and District. 2. Chinnammal w/o. R.Muthusamy, Poondipalayam, Andapuram and Post, Namakkal Taluk and District in the copy of decreetal order, whereas, in the petition filed under Sec.5 of Limitation Act petition and Or.9 R.9 CPC, the address of the claimants have been mentioned as Namakkal Taluk and District, Andapuram and Post, Pandipalayam, Muthusamy, S/o.Rasigounder-1 and Chinnammal w/o. R.Muthusamy.-2”.

7. This Court has perused the entire materials available on record.

8. From the report of the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal, it is crystal clear that the matter has been adjud