- (1.) THE Insurer, who figured as the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.2046 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VI Court of Small Causes, Chennai), has filed the appeal against the award of the said Tribunal dated 18.06.2009 awarding a sum of Rs.8,49,000/ - with interest on the said amount at the rate of 9.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment. The respondents 1 and
(2.) IN the appeal, who were the claimants in the above said M.C.O.P, have chosen to file the Cross Objection No.116 of 2011 challenging the award of the Tribunal insofar as the disallowed portion of the claim is concerned and claiming enhancement. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in accordance with their ranks in C.M.A.No.581 of 2011 with reference to their ranks in the M.C.O.P wherever necessary. 2. P.Geetha Prasad and S.Tharakeshwari, the respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal, preferred a claim of Rs.10,00,000/ - as compensation in the above said M.C.O.P for the death of R.Prasad (the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent) in a road accident that allegedly took place on 22.02.2000 at about 09.30 a.m at S.R.B Colony Main Road, Peravaloor, Chennai - 600 082. The claim was made against Sri Yasodha Krishna Brick Field, the third respondent in the appeal and National Insurance Company Limited, the appellant in the appeal, as owner and insurer of the Lorry bearing Registration No.TN01 -E -7272, which according to them was the offending vehicle involved in the accident. The respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal / claimants 1 and 2 in the M.C.O.P made their claim on the basis of their contention that while the deceased Prasad was travelling in his Scooter bearing Registration No.TN01 -C -1497 from Peravaloor market to his house at Peravaloor on 22.02.2000 at about 09.30 a.m, the above said lorry came there from the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner endangering public safety, came to the extreme wrong side of the road and dashed against the deceased resulting in his death on the spot; that the third respondent in the appeal/first respondent in the M.C.O.P, being the owner of the said lorry and the appellant in the appeal/second respondent in the M.C.O.P, namely National Insurance Company Limited, being the insurer with which the said lorry stood insured on the date of accident, were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal / claimants 1 and 2 in the M.C.O.P, who are the legal heirs of deceased Prasad; that the deceased was aged about 45 years as on the date of accident and was having a monthly income of Rs.10,250/ - as a marketing manager of Shakthi Regrigerations, Egmore, Chennai - 8 and that due to the death of the deceased Prasad, the respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal/claimants 1 and 2 in the M.C.O.P suffered pecuniary loss besides the first respondent losing consortium and both respondents 1 and 2 losing love and affection. Though they had given split up particulars of the compensation claimed, the total amount of which came to Rs.20,00,000/ -, they had prayed for an award restricting their claim to Rs.10,00,000/ - alone.
(3.) THE owner of the vehicle, namely the third respondent in the appeal/first respondent in the M.C.O.P, did not contest the case and it remained ex parte. The appellant in the appeal/second respondent in the M.C.O.P, namely the insurer alone contested the case by filing a counter statement denying the averments made by the respondents 1 and 2 as to the manner in which the accident took place. Besides disputing the averments made in the M.C.O.P regarding the manner in which the accident took place and the averment that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing Registration No. TN01 -E -7272, the appellant/second respondent (insurer) also contended that the M.C.O.P was bad for non -joinder of necessary parties. It was also contended by the appellant/second respondent (insurer) that the appellant was not liable to pay any compensation as it would deny the insurance coverage alleged by the respondents 1 and 2/claimants 1 and 2 in the M.C.O.P and also the validity of the Driving Licence held by the driver of the vehicle to drive it. It also sought permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the M.C.O.P not only on the grounds of defence available to it under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, but also on all other grounds of defence available to the insured, namely the third respondent in the appeal/first respondent in the M.C.O.P (owner of the vehicle) on the premise that the owner of the vehicle did not contest the M.C.O.P.;