JUDGMENT

The instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order, dated 17.03.2020, in M.C.O.P.No.141 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ariyalur (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur).

2. The appellant herein is the second respondent / Insurance Company. The respondents 1 to 10 herein are the legal heirs of the deceased - Janakiammal / claimants and the 11th respondent herein is the first respondent before the Court below.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to according to their litigative status of the Court below.

4. The brief fact which gives rise to filing of the instant Appeal is that the petitioners / claimants have filed the claim petition on account of death of one Janakiammal in a road accident that had taken place on 06.02.2017 at about 4.00 pm. They would submit that, on 06.02.2017, when the deceased - Janakiammal was travelling in a two wheeler, bearing Registration No.TN-47-AU-5461, as a pillion rider, driven by her husband- Balasubramaniyan, the first respondent vehicle, viz. TATA Mega Ace, bearing Registration No.TN-42-T-1706 driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-47-AU-5461. Due to such accident, the said Janakiammal sustained severe injuries and she was admitted in the hospital and was treated as inpatient from 07.02.2017 to 06.05.2017. According to the petitioners / claimants, the deceased - Janakiammal used to do handi craft work and earned monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. They would further submit that, during the pendency of the M.C.O.P, the said Janakiammal died on

10.06.2017. Therefore, the petitioners / claimants, who are the dependents of the deceased, prayed for compensation of Rs.90,00,000/-.

5. Disputing the above pleadings, the second respondent /

Insurance Company has filed a counter statement. Wherein, they disputed rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, and further submitted that the deceased's husband Mr.Balasubramaniyan has also contributed to the accident. They would further submit that, there is no nexus between the accident and the death of the deceased - Janakiammal. Therefore, he would submit that the application is liable to be dismissed.

6. Before the Court below, the petitioners / claimants have examined 2 witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked 27 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P27. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked. However, as a Court document Ex.C1 was marked.

7. The Court below, after considering the pleadings, material on record and evidence on either side, has awarded a sum of Rs.21,50,832/-

with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

8. Aggrieved with the said order, the second respondent /

Insurance Company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant / second respondent would submit that when the respondents / claimants have filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act ( Herein after called “the Act”), applying the principles of provision under Section 163-A of the Act, by the Court below is illegal, and would further submit that the medical bills, which has been submitted before the Court under Ex.P9 and Ex.P11 are only the “copy” of the bills and “original” bill was not filed. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant / second respondent would contend that having already reimbursed the medical bills, the respondents / claimants cannot have any 2nd claim under Section 166 of the Act. The learned counsel for the appellant / second respondent would rely upon the judgments of this Court reported in 2022-1-TNMAC - 217(DB) (Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., V. D.Varatharajan), 2022-1- TNMAC-611 (Mansoorabegum V. N.Malik Maddani) and 2022-1- TNMAC-801 (Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd., V.

Kathamuthu), to support their case, and prayed to allow the appeal.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 10/

claim