J U D G M E N T

This matter is heard through 'Video-conferencing'.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the order of dismissal dated 09.10.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.10 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Villupuram.

2.The appellants are claimants in M.C.O.P.No.10 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Villupuram. They filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Thangarasu, who died in the accident that took place on 18.04.2008.

3.According to the appellants, on the date of accident, i.e., on

18.04.2008, at about 1.00 p.m., while the deceased Thangarasu was riding in his motorcycle from Kalmandabam to Kondur on the extreme left side of the road, near Ramareddikulam, the driver of the Carrier belonging to the 1st respondent, which was coming behind the motorcycle drove the same, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased and caused the accident. In the accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died in the hospital. Therefore, the appellants have filed the above claim petition claiming compensation as against the respondents.

4.The 1st respondent, owner of the Carrier, remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5.The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company insurer of the Carrier filed counter statement denying the averments made by the appellants and stated that there is a delay in lodging the complaint before the Police. The death of the deceased Thangarasu was not due to the injuries sustained by him. The driver of the vehicle belonging to the 1st respondent was not responsible for the accident. The accident has occurred only due to negligence act of the deceased. The driver of the vehicle belonging to the 1st respondent did not possess valid driving license to drive the vehicle. The legal heirs of the deceased Thangarasu filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.149 of 2009 on 09.02.2009. On 15.07.2009, there was a settlement arrived at between the 2nd respondent and the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.149 of 2009 before the Legal Services Authority, Villupuram and the 2nd respondent has deposited the cheque on 12.08.2009 for Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.10,800/-. The claimants in M.C.O.P.No.149 of 2009 appeared before the Legal Service Authority, Villupuram, and on verification of the legal heir certificate, the settlement was recorded. Therefore, the appellants are not the legal heirs of the deceased Thangarasu and hence, the claim petition may be dismissed. Therefore, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the appellants. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company has also denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In any event, the compensation claimed by the appellants is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition as against the respondents.

6.Before the Tribunal, the 1st appellant, wife of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1, one Dhanraj, eye-witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and eight documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P8. The respondents examined one Vinothkumar as R.W.1 and marked the judgment of the Lok Adalat as R.W.1. One Syed Mohammed, was examined as C.W.1 and the legal heir certificate issued by C.W.1 was marked as Ex.C1.

7.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition holding that the compensation cannot be granted twice for the same accident.

8.Against the said order of dismissal dated 09.10.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.10 of 2013, the appellants have come out with the present appeal.

9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the appellants alone are the only legal heirs of the deceased Thangarasu as per Ex.P8 and Ex.C1, legal heir certificates. The Tribunal erroneously dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants based on Ex.R1, the award of the Lok Adalat passed in favour of one Latha and her two minor children, who are t