COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the order of returning the Motor Accident Claim Petitions by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court, Virudhunagar.

2.Since the Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the return made by the Tribunal, before taking the claim petitions on file, there is no necessity to issue notice to the respondents. As the points to be decided in both the revisions are one and the same, both are taken up together and a common order is being passed.

3.The revision petitioners in C.R.P.(MD)No.681 of 2021 have laid the claim petition under Section 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the death of one Karanthamalai, who died in a road accident on 17.12.2020, against the owner and insurer of the lorry by alleging that the lorry had hit the two wheeler from behind and caused the accident.

4.The revision petitioners in C.R.P.(MD)No.682 of 2021 have filed the claim petition under Section 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the death of Dhanabackiam, who died in a road accident on 27.09.2020, against the owner and insurer of Car alleging that the Car had dashed against the two wheeler. 5.The Tribunal has returned the claim petitions, directing the claimants to implead the owner and insurer of the two wheeler, as per the judgment of Division Bench of Madras High Court in CMA.No.2309 of 2018, dated 12.12.2019. Thereafter, the claim petitions were represented by stating that the decision in CMA.No.2309 of 2018 is not applicable and that there is no necessity to implead the insurer as well as the insured of the two wheeler and cited the decision of this Court passed in C.R.P.(MD)No.190 of 2021, dated 12.02.2021.

6.The Tribunal has again returned the claim petitions, which is now under challenge, directing the claimants again to implead the insurer of the two wheeler by stating that the High Court in C.R.P.No.190 of 2021, has only observed that it is not necessary to implead the dead person. In both the cases, admittedly two vehicles were involved and the claimants have impleaded the owner and insurer of the alleged offending vehicle by excluding the owner and the insurer of the other vehicle, namely the two wheelers.

7. At the outset, it is necessary to refer the decision of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.(MD)No.2309 of 2018, [The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Kumbakonam Vs. Thirugnanasambandam] which was referred by the Tribunal, for returning the claim petitions. In that case, one of the vehicle was not insured, the claimants proceeded to file the petition against the owner and insurer of the other vehicle and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had set aside the award already passed, leaving the issues open with liberty to the claimants to implead the driver or owner of the two wheeler, which was said to be responsible for the accident. The Hon'ble Division Bench has issued directions to all the Tribunals and the same is extracted hereunder :

“11. As we have stated earlier, in order to avoid the said approach, we direct all the Tribunals within the State of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry not to number any of the claim petitions without impleading the other vehicle which was also involved in the accident. However, we make it clear that this will not apply to the cases of hit and run where the tort-feasor cannot be possible of identification. The Tribunals are expected to insist the claimant to array the driver and owner of the other vehicle which is stated to be involved in the accident as party respondent before numbering the claim petition.”

8.The Tribunal following the above decision of Division Bench of this Court and the directions issued therein, has returned the claim petitions, directing the claimants to implead the owner and the insurer of the other vehicle involved in the accident and as such, the action of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khenyei Vs