The insurer is liable to compensate the dependents of a deceased pillion rider when the accident is caused by the negligence of the two-wheeler's driver, despite the involvement of an unknown vehicle.

JUDGMENT :

1. CMA.No.2374 of 2021 and CMA.No.2375 of 2021 are filed by the Insurance company/2^nd second respondent in the claim petitions. CMA.No.2856 of 2021 and CMANo.2857 of 2021 are filed by the claimants seeking enhancement.

2. It is the case of the claimants that on 18.08.2016, the husband of the first claimant and the father of the second claimant in CMA.No.2856 of 2021, travelled in a two wheeler bearing registration No. TN 42 U 7094 as a pillion rider. The two wheeler was driven by one Palanivel, son of claimants in CMA.No.2857 of 2021. It is the case of the appellants that the rider of the two wheeler, Palanivel, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and lost his control. As a result of the same, both the driver and pillion rider fell down on the road. At this juncture, an unknown lorry came in the opposite direction ran over them and hence, both of them died instantly. Claiming that driver of the two wheeler was responsible for the accident, the claim petition was filed by the above mentioned claimants against the first respondent, owner of the two wheeler and the second respondent/ Insurance company.

3. The first respondent, owner of the two wheeler, remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The second respondent, insurer of the two wheeler filed a counter affidavit and resisted the claim by denying various averments found in the claim petition. It was claimed by the second respondent that the accident had occurred due to the unknown vehicle. Therefore, the claim petition filed against the owner and the insurer of the two wheeler was not maintainable. The second respondent also denied the age and the income of the deceased person and sought for dismissal of the claim.

4. Before the Tribunal, the wife of the pillion rider was examined as PW1, the mother of the driver of the two wheeler was examined as PW2. An eyewitness was examined as PW3 and the co-worker of the pillion rider was examined as PW4. On behalf of the claimants, 19 documents were marked as Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P19. On behalf of the second respondent, the Investigation Officer, who conducted investigation of the criminal case was examined as RW1. The Branch Manager of the second respondent/the Insurance company was examined as RW2. The final report filed by the police and the Insurance policy were marked as Exhibit R1 and Exhibit R2.

5. The Tribunal, based on the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the two wheeler and hence, as an insurer, the second respondent was liable to pay compensation amount. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,06,000/- as compensation to the parents of the driver of the two wheeler and Rs.13,30,000/- as compensation to the wife and child of the deceased pillion rider.

6. Questioning the liability, the Insurance company/2^nd Respondent has filed two appeals in CMA.Nos.2374 of 2021 and 2375 of 2021. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants in both the claim petitions have filed appeals in CMA.No.2856 and 2857 of 2021.

7. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company/ appellant in CMA.Nos.2374 and 2375 of 2021, vehemently contended that the accident was caused by an unknown lorry and therefore, the Tribunal committed a serious error in concluding that accident had occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the two wheeler. The learned counsel submitted that the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by the parents of the driver of the vehicle is not maintainable when he himself was a Tortfeasor. He further submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was very much on higher side taking into consideration the date of the accident and the evidence available on record.

8. The learned counsel for the claimants/ appellants in CMA.Nos.2856 and 2857 of 2021 submitted that in petition filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles A