J U D G M E N T

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.244 of 2016, dated 30.11.2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai.

2. The appellant/insurer, who was made liable to pay compensation of Rs.9,62,200/- with interest at 7.5% per annum to the respondents 1 and 2 / claimants for the death of their brother Ravikumar consequent to an accident occurred on 04.11.2013, challenged the award for want of dependency and for granting major portion of the award to the owner of the vehicle.

3. The case of the claimants is that on 04.11.2013 at about

02.00 pm., one Azhagesan was riding a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-63-AE-7107 with the deceased Ravikumar as pillion rider in Madurai to Mandapam road to his Marakadai from north to south and at the place near O.V.C. School Speed Breaker, the driver rode the vehicle rashly and negligently and suddenly applied the break and as a result of which, the pillion rider Ravikumar fell down and sustained injuries and he was taken to Vikram Hospital, Madurai and thereafter, Rajaji Government Hospital, Maduri and subsequently, he succumbed to the injuries on 05.11.2013 and that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the two wheeler rider. It is the further case of the claimants that the deceased was working as a carpenter and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month.

4. The first respondent had remained ex-parte. The appellant/

second respondent has filed counter statement stating that the owner of the vehicle, rider and the police officials have colluded with each other and filed the criminal case and on that basis, filed the above petition; that the insurer is not liable for the claim and that the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive.

5. During trial, the claimants have examined the second claimant Ramraj as P.W.1 and two other witnesses Thiru.Pandiyan and Thiru.Vijayaraj as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively and exhibited 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 and Ex.X.1. The appellant insurer/second respondent has examined two witnesses as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and exhibited three documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R3.

6. The Tribunal, upon considering the evidence, both oral and documentary has passed the impugned award, dated 30.11.2017 by holding that the two wheeler rider was responsible for the accident, directed the appellant/insurer to pay compensation of Rs.9,62,200/-. 7. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein after will be referred as per their status/ranking in the Tribunal.

8. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the vehicle involved in the accident is owned by the first respondent, who is the mother of the deceased Ravikumar and the claimants are none other than the brothers of the deceased; that the first respondent-owner of the vehicle is not a third party under the Motor Vehicles Act and that the Tribunal committed a grave error in apportioning 80% of the award amount in favour of the first respondent-owner of the vehicle.

9. The learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer would further submit that the trial Court ought to have found that the compensation payable by the Insurance Company is based on the principle of law of indemnification and wherein, the Insurance Company is called upon to pay the compensation to the claimants on behalf of the owner of the vehicle and as such the owner of the vehicle cannot be a claimant against his own insurance company.

10. Admittedly, the first respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident is none other than the mother of the deceased Ravikumar. The Tribunal, considering the evidence available on record, has come to a decision that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the two wheeler rider. Admittedly, no other vehicle was involved in the accident.

11. It is not in dispute that the vehicle involved in the incident was insured wit