The appellant was the second respondent before the MACT, Bangalore in MVC No. 473/98. The respondents 1 to 5 were the claimants before the Tribunal. The claim petition was lodged by the claimants on account of death of one P. R. Tagore who died in a road traffic accident occurred on 19-8-97 between Palamaner and Bangalore on N. H. No. 4 near Pattikonda Village. The deceased was an officer of M/s. Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd.

M/s. Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. was the owner of vehicle bearing registration No. KA04-N-831 which has been insured with the appellant herein. Since the deceased was an officer of M/s. Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd., the once had provided the above car for the personal use of the deceased. On the unfortunate day, the deceased was travelling with his wife Smt. P. Vijayalakshmi who is the second respondent in this appeal. They were proceeding from Bangalore towards Palamaner. Near Pattikonda village, on seeing an oncoming lorry in a rash and negligent manner, the deceased who was driving the vehicle applied brake due to which, it turned down. The deceased and his wife sustained grievous injuries. The wife was shifted to Palamaner Hospital and deceased was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore. The second respondent Smt. Vijayalakshmi lodged a complaint before the police in regard to the manner in which the accident occurred and the case was registered. FIR is produced as Ex. P.7. Since the injured driver died, the FIR is registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC. The appellant insurance company admitted the issuance of policy. According to the appellant, the policy was in force on the date of the accident and it was further contended that if there is any liability of the insurance company, the same is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It was also contended that since deceased died on account of his negligence, there was no liability and requested the Court to exonerate the appellant-insurance company. The Tribunal based on the above pleadings, framed the following issues:

1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 19-8-98 at about 1.00 p.m. the driver of car bearing No. KA-04-N831 driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused an accident?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the amount of compensation? and who is responsible for payment of compensation?

3. By what order or award?"

2. The widow was examined as PW -I. One witness was examined as PW-2. The claimants relied upon Ex. P. I to P. 10. On behalf of the insurance company, one witness was examined as RW-l. Insurance company relied upon Exs. R1 and R 2. The Tribunal considering the evidence let in by the parties, held issues Nos. 1 and 2 in affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs. 9,90,000/and fixed the liability on the insurance company.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following points during the course of his arguments:

When the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, the claim petition lodged by his legal representatives was not maintainable. The Tribunal without considering the terms and conditions of the policy has wrongly saddled the liability on it. Therefore, the judgment and award has to be set aside.

5. To support his arguments he has relied upon the charge-sheet filed by the police against the deceased which is produced as Ex. R I. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Jayamma D. & another v. S. Govindaswamy & others' reported in 1982 (1) KLJ 375: (1982 Lab IC 1666) and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2007 AIR SCW 859 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Jhuma Saha & others); and in ACJ 2007 1284: (2007 (3) AIR Kar R 437) (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal and others).

6. According, to the learned counsel for the respondents, none of the judgment relied upon by