The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of due diligence, inadvertence, and the necessity for additional evidence to pronounce judgment.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act to set aside the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018 dated 14.12.2020 on the file of the Motor Accidents Calims Tribunal, Special District Court to deal with Motor Accident Cases, Madurai.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act to enhance the compensation amount in M.C.O.P.No.187 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special District Judge, Madurai, dated 14.12.2020.)

Common Judgment:

1. C.M.A(MD)No.622 of 2021 is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Special Court to deal with Motor Accident Cases, Madurai, dated 14.12.2020 in M.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018.

2. C.M.A(MD)No.673 of 2021 is filed by the claimants against the judgment and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Special District Judge, Madurai, dated 14.12.2020 in M.C.O.P.No.187 of 2018 for enhancement of compensation.

3. As common issues are raised in both the appeals, the appeals are taken up together and common judgment is passed.

4. The brief facts in appeals are as follows:

According to the claimants, the accident occurred on 14.01.2017 at about 3.30 pm near the speed breaker at Narikudi Railway gate. The deceased was travelling in a two wheeler along with her husband, who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner near the speed breaker, due to which, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was taken to Aruppukottai Government Hospital initially and later, taken to Madurai Government Hospital for further treatment where she finally died on 17.01.2017. The deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of the accident and she was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore, the claimants, who are minor son and daughter of the deceased and also the father and mother of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking a sum of Rs.28,00,000/- as compensation.

5. The first respondent filed counter denying the negligence of the rider of the two wheeler and further contended that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased. He further contended that at the time of the accident, the two wheeler was insured with the second respondent insurance company and therefore, the liability, if any, should be mulcted on the insurance company.

6. The second respondent insurance company filed counter generally denying all the contentions raised in the claim petition, and particularly denied that the driver of the two wheeler was possessed of a valid driving licence. The second respondent further contended that it was for the petitioner to prove that there was a valid insurance coverage for the two wheeler and that none of the terms and conditions of the policy were violated. On these and other grounds, the second respondent insurance company prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

7. The Tribunal on an assessment of the entire evidence on record allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.14,62,300/- as compensation along with 7.5% interest.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Tribunal, both the insurance company as well as the claimants have filed the above appeals.

9. The appellant insurance company has filed C.M.P(MD)No.1313 of 2023 for receiving additional evidence. The appellant insurance company has filed the said C.M.P to receive the insurance policy as an additional evidence. According to the insurance company, the deceased was riding the two wheeler as a pillion rider and as the policy was an Act Policy the pillion rider was not covered. The appellant insurance company contended that due to inadvertence the insurance policy could not be filed before the lower Court and that the receipt of the additional evidence would aid the Court in rendering substantial justice.

10. The l