Action of driver and owner of the vehicle held in violation of rule.

P. Sathasivam, J.

First respondent in M.A.C.T. O.P.No. 1134 of 1994 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai, owner of lorry bearing registration No. KA03 3614 which involved in the accident is the appellant in the above appeal. In respect of death of one Thoppai Konar in a road accident that took place on 24-2-94, his wife, daughters and son have prayed for a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. Before the Tribunal, 5th claimant, son of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Renu as P.W.2 besides marking Exs. P-1 to P-3 in support of their claim. On the side of the Insurance Company, 2nd respondent therein, their Officers were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2 and they also marked Exs. R-1 to R-13 in support of their defence. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary, after holding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry in question, passed an award for Rs.51,000/- and directed the first respondent therein/appellant herein, owner of the vehicle to pay the said amount. Questioning the said award, the appellant/owner has preferred the present appeal.

2. Heard Mr. T.M. Venkataraman, learned counsel for the appellant-owner of the lorry and Mrs. Radhika Krishnan, learned counsel for the contesting 7th respondent – United India Insurance company.

3. Even at the foremost, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal, instead of passing an award against the Insurance company, directed the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation. In such a circumstance, there is no need to refer the factual details relating to negligence and quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal.

4. It is seen that on 24-12-94 while the deceased Thoppai Konar was travelling in the lorry bearing registration No. KA 03 3614 along with 31 paddy bags, it met with an accident, thereby the he fell down and sustained fatal injuries. His wife and children are the claimants. It is also their case that since the lorry, which belongs to the appellant herein, was insured with the 7th respondent Insurance company, both are liable to pay compensation. There is no dispute that the lorry bearing registration No.KA 03 3514 was insured with the 7th respondent herein. The Insurance Company examined their Officers as R.Ws.1 and 2 through whom, besides permit and other documents relating to the lorry, copy of the policy has been marked as Ex.B-12, and tariff details in respect of extra benefits as Ex.B-11. A perusal of the details, particularly Exs. B-11 and B-12 coupled with the oral evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 would clearly show that except third party insurance and premium for driver and cleaner, no additional premium was paid for others. In other words, according to Ex. B-12, no additional payment of premium was paid for non-fair passenger. Though an amount of Rs.30/- was paid, as shown in clause 17 of the policy, as properly explained and rightly accepted by the Tribunal, the said amount relates to the driver and cleaner of the lorry and not to non-fair passengers. Admittedly, the accident had occurred on 24-2-94. There is no dispute that on the relevant date, there was no necessity for the insurance company to cover the risk in respect of persons travelling in the goods vehicle or non-fair paying passengers. In other words, prior to the amendment of 1994 in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it was not necessary for the insurer to insure against the owner of the goods or his authorised representative being carried in a goods vehicle. In the absence of any additional premium in Ex. B-12, we are of the view that the Tribunal is fully justified in exonerating the insurance company from its liability and fastening the entire liability in favour of the owner of the vehicle, namely, appellant herein. In this regard, it is useful to refer a latest decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Asha Ran, reported in 2003 (Vol.1) ACJ 1. The question that w