The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Insurance Company's liability for compensation is contingent upon the driver's compliance with policy conditions and possession of a valid driving licence for the type of vehicle involved in the accident.

1. The appellants/petitioners have filed this civil miscellaneous appeal as against the award dated 20.01.2003 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.4647 of 1998 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in directing the first respondent to pay sum of Rs.92,000/- (Rupees Ninety two thousand only) (including the interim relief) to the appellants/petitioners along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of award till date of deposit into Court etc.

2. The short facts of the claim are as follows:

(i) On 05.05.2008 at about 16 hours while Udayakumar (deceased) crossing the Manjabakkam road towards Redhills direction at that time a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-01-A-5049 came from Redhills Market towards Manali, driven in a very rash and negligent fashion by its driver at a terrific speed endangering public safety and knocked down the deceased and as a result of the said accident, the deceased fell down and the wheels of the lorry ran over the deceased legs and later he expired at the hospital due to multiple injuries. The accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and the first respondent (owner of the offending lorry) and the second respondent/Insurance Company (insurer) are vicariously liable to pay the compensation with interest and costs from the date of filing of the petition to the claimants/parents.

(ii) The second respondent/Insurance Company in its counter took a denial that on 05.05.1998 at about 16 hours when the deceased was crossing the Manjabakkam road, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-01-A-5049 proceeding from Redhills Market to Manali was driven in a rash and negligent manner and knocked down the appellants/petitioners son and ran over his legs resulting in fatal injuries.

(iii) The second respondent/Insurance Company also took a plea that the driver of the offending lorry was not in possession of a valid driving licence and that the first respondents driver was possessing a licence to drive Heavy Goods Vehicle alone and that he was not having the special endorsement in his favour, in his driving licence to drive the vehicles carrying Hazardous Goods. Moreover, the claim made under several captions in the claim petition were speculative and imaginary and the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- was highly excessive.

(iv) Inasmuch as the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-01-A-5049 was not having the valid driving licence at the time of accident, there was no privity of contract to pay the claim amount on behalf of the first respondent and hence on this score, the petition was liable to be dismissed against the Insurance Company.

(v) Before the Tribunal, the first respondent was set exparte.

(vi) Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the appellants/ claimants, witness P.W.1 (second claimant) was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On the side of second respondent, witnesses R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.R.1 and R.2 were marked.

(vii) The Tribunal, on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to the conclusion that the appellants/claimants are entitled to receive a sum of RS.92,000/- (including the interim relief) from the first respondent/owner of the offending lorry together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of payment and passed an award accordingly. Eight weeks time was granted for depositing the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal.

3. Dissatisfied with the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal viz., VI Judge, Court of Small Causes Court, Chennai, the claimants as appellants have preferred this appeal before this Court.

4. According to the learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants, the award passed by the claims Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and further, the Tribunal has misdirected itself in awarding the compensation only against the first respondent (owner of the