The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurance company in cases of accidents involving insured vehicles and the determination of compensation based on the deceased's income and the number of dependents.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.840 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai.)

This Cross Objection is filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.840 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai.)

Common Judgment:

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. C.M.A.No.2036 of 2018 has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.840 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai. Cross Objection No.61 of 2022 has been filed by the claimants/respondents 1 to 4 herein seeking enhancement of the compensation granted by the Tribunal in the said award.

2.The appellant/Insurance Company is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.840 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai. The respondents 1 to 4 filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Arumugam, who died in the accident that took place on 24.08.2011. The respondents 1 to 4 are wife, sons and daughter of the deceased Arumugam. The 6th respondent Muthaiyakonar is the father and one Muthammal is the mother of the deceased Arumugam. Pending claim petition, Muthammal, mother of the deceased Arumugam, died.

3. According to the respondents 1 to 4, on the date of accident i.e., on 24.08.2011 at bout 8.30 P.M., while the deceased Arumugam was riding his Bajaj Platina motorcycle /bearing Registration No.TN-250-2848 from Tirukoilur towards Nariyandhal Village on the extreme left side of Tirukoilur to Sankarapuram Road near Thotti Village, the driver of the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-32-C-2669 belonging to the 7th respondent, attached with Trailer bearing Registration No.TN-32-C-3793 belonging to the 5th respondent, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle driven by the said Arumugam and caused the accident. In the accident, the deceased Arumugam sustained injuries and died on the way to hospital. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 4, filed the above claim petition claiming compensation for his death against the respondents 5 and 7, who are owners of trailer and tractor and appellant/Insurance Company, insurer of the said trailer and tractor.

4. The 5th respondent, owner of the trailer remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5. The appellant/Insurance Company filed counter statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and stated that there was no such accident occurred as alleged by the respondents 1 to 4. In the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, the Registration number of the vehicle involved in the accident was mentioned as TN-32-C-2669. F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the tractor bearing Registration No.TN-32-A-4717. The respondents 1 to 4 and owner of the tractor bearing Registration No.TN-32- C-2669 colluded with the Police authorities, produced the tractor before the RTO Office. The accident has occurred on 24.08.2011. The vehicles were sent to RTO Office on 19.12.2011. There is a delay of 87 days for sending the vehicles for inspection. Therefore, the accident is doubtful. At the time of accident, the deceased Arumugam did not possess valid driving license to ride the motorcycle. The deceased alone hit the tractor and invited the accident. The driver of the tractor did not possess valid driving license at the time of accident and the owner has violated the policy condition. The owner and insurer of the motorcycle were not made as parties and hence, the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents 1 to 4. The appellant/Insurance Company has also denied the