C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

R.PONGIAPPAN, J.

Aggrieved over the common award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [Special Sub Judge No.2, Small Causes Court], Chennai, in MCOP Nos.6456 & 6455 of 2014, the Insurance Company, who is the 2nd respondent in the abovesaid MCOPs have preferred this two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals viz., CMA Nos.1853 & 1956 of 2019, respectively, praying to set aside the award passed by the Claims tribunal, as erroneous.

2. Per contra, the claimant in MCOP No.6455 of 2014, has filed a Cross Objection No.18 of 2020, seeking the relief to enhance the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their litigative status, before the claims tribunal.

4. The case of the claimants in both the claim petitions, is as follows:

(i) On 12.08.2014, at about 10.15pm, the claimant in MCOP No.6455 of 2014 viz., N.Senthil Chinnappa was riding the bike bearing Regn.No.TN10-AK-5845, in which the claimant in MCOP No.6456 of 2014, travelled as a pillion rider. In Poonamallee to Guindy Road, when the bike reaches the Sabri Nagar Junction, Moulivakkam, a car bearing Regn.No.TN21 AK 9640 came in the same road from West to East, in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the motorcycle, in which both the claimants were travelling. Due to the result of the said accident, both the claimants fell down and sustained grievous injuries. In this regard, a case in Crime No.1155/PH3/2014 has been registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Poonamallee Traffic Investigation, Chennai, under Sections 279, 337 & 338 IPC, against the driver of the car.

(ii) After getting treatment, both the claimants, have preferred the abovesaid MCOPs against the respondents, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the said road accident. Since the 1st respondent is the owner of the car and the 2nd respondent, is the insurer, both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to both the claimants.

5. Before the claims tribunal in both the cases, 2nd respondent herein who is the owner of the offending vehicle, remained exparte.

6. However, opposing the claim made by the claimants, the 2nd respondent-Insurance company filed the counter and states that on preliminary investigation, they came to understand that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the motorcyclist, i.e. the claimant in MCOP No.6455 of 2014. Only at the time when the rider of the motorcycle crossed the Poonamallee – Guindy Road, near to Moulivakkam Sabari Junction in the wrong side of the road from North to South, the accident had happened. Hence, the owner of the bike bearing Regn.No.TN10 AK 5845 in which both the claimants travelled and the insurer of the said vehicle are necessary parties for the proper adjudication on the point of negligence.

7. According to the 2nd respondent, the claim petitions filed by the claimants are barred by non-joinder of necessary parties. The claimants have to prove the injuries alleged to have been sustained, nature of treatment, period of treatment, avocation, income, medical and other expenses. The 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. Since the claimant in MCOP No.6455 of 2014, was the tort-feaser, he is not entitled to any compensation under the provisions of law.

8. Before the claims tribunal, as per the memo filed by the claimants, both the claims petitions were tried together.

9. On the side of the claimants, two witnesses have been examined as PW1, PW2 and 15 documents were exhibited as Exs.P1 to P15. On the side of the respondents, no witnesses have been examined. However, one document has been marked as Ex.R1, by consent. Apart from that, the disability certificate issued to the claimant in MCOP No.6455 of 2014 by the medical board, has been marked as Ex.C1.

10. Having considered all the materials placed before him, the learned Presiding Officer, Claims Tribunal, came to the conclusion that the accident h