J U D G M E N T

(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid mode”)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant-

Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.121 of 2016 on the file of the IV Additional District Court, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Erode District, Bhavani.

2.The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.121 of 2016 on the file of the IV Additional District Court, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Erode District, Bhavani. The 1st respondent/claimant filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the accident that took place on 26.11.2015.

3.According to the 1st respondent, on the date of accident, she was traveling in an Auto bearing Registration No.TN-36-J-3380 belonging to the 2nd respondent and driven by the 2nd respondent, towards Kavundapadi to Bhavani Road, Sulaimedu to deliver the goods to Maligai Shop. While nearing Annamar Kovil, the 2nd respondent without following traffic rules and regulations, on seeing a dog crossing the road, suddenly applied brake. Due to the said impact, the Auto capsized and thus, the accident occurred. In the accident, the 1st respondent suffered grievous and multiple injuries. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the 2nd respondent, driver-cum-owner of the Auto. Hence, the 1st respondent filed the claim petition claiming compensation against the 2nd respondent as owner-

cum-driver and appellant as insurer of the offending vehicle respectively.

4.The 2nd respondent, owner-cum-driver of the Auto, remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5.The appellant-Insurance Company, filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the 1st respondent in the claim petition. According to the appellant, the seating capacity of the vehicle involved in accident is one and admittedly, the 1st respondent traveled in the said vehicle along with the 2nd respondent/driver of the Auto at the time of accident. The 1st respondent traveled as gratuitous passenger/Non Fair Paying Passenger and hence, she is not entitled to claim any compensation on the policy of insurance issued to the said vehicle. Having filed the claim petition under Section 163 – A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the 1st respondent is not entitled to claim her monthly income as Rs.10,000/- per month, which amounts to Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. FIR was filed after two days of the accident and no records were furnished for the treatment taken at Saravana Hospital, Bhavani, which gives room for suspicion about genuineness of the accident. The 1st respondent has to prove the manner of accident, involvement of the said Auto in the accident, her age, avocation and income, treatment taken and injuries sustained, to claim compensation. In any event, the total compensation claimed by the 1st respondent is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined herself as P.W.1, examined Dr.Madhuperiyasamy, as P.W.2 and marked 5 documents as Exs.P1 to P5. The appellant examined the Superintendent of the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Office, Bhavani as R.W.1 and their Administrative Officer as R.W.2 and marked the Insurance Policy as Ex.R1. Two documents were marked as Exs.W1 and W2. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board was marked as Ex.C1.

7.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is maintainable and awarded a sum of Rs.3,36,487/- as compensation to the 1st respondent and directed the appellant as insurer of the said vehicle to pay the compensation to the 1st respondent at the first instance and recover the same from the 2nd respondent.

8.To set aside the award of the Tribunal dated 13.02.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.121 of 2016, the appellant - Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal.

9.The