Advocates:
['M/S N VIJAYARAGHAVAN', '', 'M B RAGHAVAN', 'm/s m kavikannan']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved On

29.04.2021

Pronounced On

11.06.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

C.M.A.No.4127 of 2019

and

C.M.P.No.23338 of 2019

(Through Video Conferencing)

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

No.32/3/2, 13^th Street,

Phase-II, TNHB,

Sathuvacherry, Vellore.

... Appellant/4^th Respondent

Vs.

1.Ulagaraj

2.Jagadeesan

3.Sasikala

4.Vinitha

5.Seema

6.Venkatesan

7.Murugesan

8.Kumar

... Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 5 &

RR 1 to 3

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree made

in M.C.O.P.No.133 of 2015 dated 12.04.2019, on the file of the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court,

Tirupattur.

For Appellant

: M/s.Harini

for Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan

For Respondents

: No appearance

J U D G M E N T

There is no representation on behalf of the first to

fifth respondents/claimants even though the name of the

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

counsel Mr.M.Kavikannan has been printed in the cause list.

He has filed vakalat for the first to fifth respondents. This

case was listed twice earlier and adjourned so that the

counsel for the first to fifth respondents can appear and

defend the impugned Judgment and Decree and assist the Court.

However, it appears that the counsel engaged for them is not

interested to protect the interest of his clients despite the

case appearing twice in the list. After hearing the learned

counsel for appellant insurance company it was finally

reserved for passing orders.

2. The Insurance Company is the appellant in this appeal.

It is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated

12.04.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

(Special Subordinate Judge), Tirupattur in M.C.O.P.No.133 of

2015.

3. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the Tribunal has

awarded an amount of Rs.17,47,500/- together with interest at

7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date

of deposit to the first to fifth respondents even though they

have claimed for Rs.10,00,000/- before the Tribunal.

4. The first to fifth respondents were the claimants

before the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.133 of 2015. They had filed

a claim petition for compensation for the death of their wife

and mother Poongodi who died in an accident tragically on

07.03.2014. She was riding as a pillion rider on a motor

cycle (TVS-XL Super) bearing Registration No.TN-23-BL-4249

driven by the fourth respondent who is her daughter. The said

motor cycle was hit by an uninsured motor cycle (Hero Honda)

bearing Registration No.TN-23-BZ-1801. Therefore, the claim

petition was filed against only against the appellant, the

insurer of the

motor cycle (TVS-XL Super) bearing

Registration No.TN-23-BL-4249.

5. The case of the appellant Insurance Company is that

the Tribunal having concluded that the owner and the rider of

the Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-23-BZ-

1801 was rash and negligent and had caused the accident,

ought not to have awarded compensation to be paid by the

appellant insurer of the TVS-XL Super Motorcycle bearing

Registration No.TN-23-BL-4249, merely because the owner the

appellant had extended a comprehensive insurance cover for

the owner of the aforesaid moped.

6. The Tribunal has allowed the claim petition with the

following observations:-

"Point No.3

Liability:-

This tribunal for the reasons stated in

Point No.1 has comes to a conclusion that the

driver of the Hero Honda vehicle bearing

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

registration No.TN 23 BZ 1801 namely

Venkatesan the first respondent is responsible

for the accident. Further more on perusal of

Ex.P2 the RC Book the same stands in the name

of the 2^nd respondent. It is an admitted fact

that the Hero Honda motor cycle was not

insured with the any of th