J U D G M E N T

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

This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the liability fastened on them in the award dated 15.07.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.153 of 2011 on the file of the III Additional District & Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Kallakurichi, Villupuram District.

2.The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No.153 of 2011 on the file of the III Additional District & Sessions Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Kallakurichi, Villupuram District. The 1st respondent/claimant filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.21,08,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 02.07.2008.

3.According to the 1st respondent, on the date of accident, when he was riding the Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-31-M-9844 from Erumbur to Neyveli, near Veenangeni Bus Stop at Cuddalore to Vridhachalam Main Road, one unidentified Tata Sumo Car dashed against the Motorcycle and caused the accident. In the accident, the 1st respondent suffered grievous and multiple injuries all over the body. The accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the unidentified Tata Sumo Car. Hence, the 1st respondent filed the claim petition claiming compensation against the 2nd respondent as owner of the Motorcycle which he was riding and appellant, as insurer of the said vehicle.

4.The 2nd respondent, owner of the Motorcycle, 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 Motorcycle owned by the 2nd respondent was not insured with them, as the 1st respondent neither mentioned the Policy number in the claim petition nor produced the policy copy along with the claim petition. The claim petition is not maintainable as the owner, driver and insurer of the Tata Sumo Car are not impleaded as a party. FIR has been registered against the driver of the unidentified Tata Sumo Car on 09.08.2008, belatedly. As the 1st respondent is a gratuitous passenger, he cannot claim compensation from the appellant, for an accident that occurred due to his own negligence. The 1st respondent has to prove his age, avocation and income to claim compensation. In any event, the total compensation claimed is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1, examined Dr.Visvanathan as P.W.2 and marked 17 documents as Exs.P1 to P17. The appellant examined one Sampath, Legal Adviser of the appellant-

Transport Corporation as R.W.1 and marked Policy copy as Ex.R1.

7.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the 1st respondent is entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident and directed the appellant, as insurer of the said vehicle, to pay a sum of Rs.5,80,000/- as compensation to the 1st respondent.

8.Challenging the liability fastened on them by the award of the Tribunal dated 15.07.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.153 of 2011, the appellant -

Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal.

9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to see that the 1st respondent is the tort-feasor and he is not entitled to get compensation from the appellant-Insurance Company. The Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company, as he is not covered under the policy issued by the appellant. The Tribunal, considering the oral and documentary evidence let in by the appellant, ought to have exonerated the appellant-Insurance Company from the liability. The Tribunal failed to consider the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710 [Ningamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited] and 2021 (2) TN MAC 574 [New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,