1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.09.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1166 of 2005 The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 74-A, Salai Road, Thillainagar, Trichy – 18. .. Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs. 1.Krishnaveni 2.C.Balasivam (R2 – Exparte) .. Respondents/Petitioner and 1st Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 31.01.2005 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1590 of 2000 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Tiruchirappalli. For Appellant .. Mr.N.Murugesan For Respondent .. Mr.R.Athimoolapandian No.1 for Mr.A.Saravanan JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the award dated 31.01.2005 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1590 of 2000 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Tiruchirappalli. 2. The first respondent herein as petitioner has filed M.C.O.P.No.1590 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal praying to pass an award for the amount mentioned therein, wherein the present appellant and second respondent have been shown as respondents. 3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after considering the available evidence on record has awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/- with 9% interest by way of compensation. With regard to liability as well as quantum of interest, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the second respondent as appellant. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent has challenged the award in question on the following grounds: (a) The first respondent is the owner of the two wheeler and without his knowledge his two wheeler has been driven and subsequently involved in the accident and therefore the appellant/ second respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. (b) Even though the award in question has been passed in the year 2005, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has erroneously given 9% interest and the same is liable to be modified. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. With regard to first aspect, even though a definite stand has been taken to that effect, on the side of the appellant/second respondent no attempt has been made so as to examine the first respondent (owner of the vehicle). The first respondent (owner of the vehicle) is the competent person to speak about the alleged fact to the effect that without his knowledge his vehicle has been taken out and subsequently involved in the accident. Since the first respondent (owner of the vehicle) has not at all been examined, the first contention putforth on the side of the appellant/second respondent cannot be accepted. 6. It is an admitted fact that the award in question has been passed in the year 2005. But the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded 9% interest. Considering the date of award, this Court is of the view to award only 7.5% interest and with regard to modification in interest the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be allowed in part. 7. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part without costs and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1590 of 2000 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Tiruchirappalli is modified as follows: The first respondent/petitioner is entitled to get Rs.70,000/- by way of compensation with 7.5% interest. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To The Chief Judicial Magistrate, The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruchirappalli. + 1 cc to Mr.N.Murugesaan, Advocate, SR No.32317 C.M.A(MD)No.1166 of 2005 20.09.2011 smn RJ/10.10.11 2p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/