Insurance Company held liable for payment of compensation.

AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.

All the letters patent appeals are directed against the common judgment of V. Ratnam, J., as he then was, in C.M.A. Nos. 136 to 144 of 1989 dated 29-10-1993. C.R.P. No. 2655 of 1990 is directed against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, in M.A.C.O.P. No. 17 of 1988. All the appeals and the revision have been preferred by the owner of the lorry MDT 8827 involved in the accident. The 1 st respondent in all the matters is the claimant while the 2nd respondent is the insurance company.

2. On 27-3-1985 when some of the claimants and others were travelling in the lorry MDT 8827 with paddy bags between Tirunelveli and Kariyapatti, at about 5-30 a.m., near the garden of one Thanga Pandian on the Virudhunagar Kallakurichi Road, an accident took place in which some persons lost their lives and others sustained injuries. The injured and the legal representatives of the deceased passengers who travelled in the lorry claimed compensation in a sum of Rs.25, 000/-, Rs.25, 000/-, Rs.10, 000/-, Rs.35, 000/-, Rs.25, 000/-, Rs.25, 000/-, Rs.53, 000/-, Rs.25, 000/- and Rs.25, 000/- respectively stating that the lorry involved in the accident was driven rashly and negligently by its driver and that has caused the accident and therefore, compensation should be awarded to them.

3. The appellant/ owner of the lorry resisted the claim on the ground that on 27-3-1985 several agricultural coolies were returning from Tirunelveli to Kariapatti along with their paddy bags for their safe carriage on payment of a hire of Rs. 60/-, that between Virudhunagar and Kallakurichi near the garden of one Thanga Pandian, the lorry was caught in a depression on the road, that with a view to avert any accident, the driver asked all the passengers to get down, that while the driver attempted to pull out the lorry, it capsized and those who were standing near the lorry got involved in the accident and that the accident was not the outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The owner of the lorry has also pleaded that he was not liable for payment of compensation and that in any event, the compensation claimed is excessive and on the high side.

4. The insurance company in the counter put forward the plea that the owner of the lorry had permitted 50 passengers to be carried in the goods vehicle and that was opposed to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as well as the conditions in the policy, that the persons accompanying the goods were not covered under the terms of the policy issued by the insurance company and that therefore, no liability for payment of compensation could be fastened on it. The compensation amounts claimed were also stated to be out of all proportions to the loss sustained by the representatives of the deceased persons and the injuries sustained by the injured persons.

5. On a joint memo filed by the parties, the claim petitions were heard together by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, found that the accident took place when the driver of the lorry attempted rashly and negligently to pull the lorry out of the ditch into which it had got in, and that the claimants/ 1st respondent herein were entitled to be paid compensation in a sum of Rs. 10, 000/-, Rs. 15, 000/-, Rs.10, 000/-, Rs. 10, 000/-, Rs. 3, 000/-, Rs.12, 500/-, Rs. 10, 000/-, Rs.7, 500/- and Rs. 5, 000/- respectively together with interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date of the claim petitions till date of payment.

6. So far as the claim in regard to M.A.C.O.P. No. 17 of 1988 is concerned, the Tribunal by order dated 10-7-1990 fastened the liability on the owner of the vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs. 5, 300/- to the claimant Mahalingam against which the owner of the lorry has filed C.R.P. No. 2655 of 1990 under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India sinc