COMMON JUDGMENT

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed against the common award, dated 29.10.2011, made in M.C.O.P.Nos.505, 507 and 510 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - III Principal District Judge, Tuticorin..

The appellant herein is the respondent, the first respondent herein is the claimant.

2. A brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.505 of 2009, is as follows:

On 03.12.2008, the petitioner and his family members were returning to Thoothukudi from Thisayanvilai after attending a marriage, in a Maruthi 800 Car, bearing Registration No.TN-69-M-0713, when the father of the petitioner, by name, Sudalaiyandi, was driving the car in a drowsy and sleepy mood, the vehicle went off from the road to the right side that is on the eastern side of the road and fell into the adjoining Authoor tank and the car drowned into the water. When the petitioner escaped from the car by jumping out, he sustained injuries and he claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.

3. A brief substance of the claim petition, in M.C.O.P.No.506 of 2009, is as follows:

In the said accident, the brother of the petitioner,namely, Sudar Sabarish, died. The deceased - Sudar Sabarish was 12 years old. The petitioner lost his brother and he claimed a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation.

4. A brief substance of the claim petition, in M.C.O.P.No.510 of 2009, is as follows:

In the said accident, the mother of the petitioner, namely, Sankari, died.

The deceased - Sankari was 46 years old and she was earning Rs.21,000/- per month by doing tailoring and by money lending. The petitioner lost his mother and he claimed a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation.

5. Brief substance of the counter filed by the respondent in all the petitions is as follows:

The manner of accident is wrongly narrated in the petition. The petitioner has not sustained any injury in the accident. He has not taken any treatment. The claimant sustained only simple injuries and award for pain and sufferings is not valid. The petitioner has to prove that the late.Sudalaiyandi was having valid and effective driving licence. The age, income of the two deceased were not admitted. The compensation claimed under various heads are all excessive. The petitions to be dismissed.

6. Brief substance of the additional counter filed by the respondent in all the petitions is as follows:

Even in the F.I.R, it was stated that the petitioner's father was the owner cum driver and he was driving the car in a drowsy sleepy mood, which resulted in the accident. Since the owner of the car was not impleaded as a party, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

7. Another petition in M.C.O.P.No.506 of 2009 was filed along with this claim petitions. All the four petitions arose out of the same accident and hence, the Tribunal has taken up all the four matters for joint trial and pronounced a common judgment.

8. In the joint trial before the Tribunal, 2 witnesses were examined and 15 documents were marked, on the side of the claimant. 1 witness was examined and 1 document was marked, on the side of the respondent. After considering both sides, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.506 of 2009. The Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- as compensation in M.C.O.P.No.505 of 2009. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,12,500/- as compensation in M.C.O.P.No.507 of 2009. The Tribunal awarded Rs.4,71,500/- as compensation in M.C.O.P.No.510 of 2009.

9. Against the order, the respondent / respondent filed these appeals on the following grounds:-

The claimant is not a third party, he has actually become the owner of the vehicle. His father was the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of accident. The claimant cannot be the same person to claim compensation as well as a person, who ought to have paid the compensation. The policy of insurance is not meant for compensating the owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal is wrong in the fixing liability to pay compensation for the occupant of the v