The insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident based on the contract of indemnification towards liability of the third parties.

This appeal is filed at the instance of the Insurance Corporation against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sankari in M.C.O.P.No.56 of 1998 dated 08.03.2002 praying to set aside the award of the tribunal.

2. The Tribunal after having considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side had passed an award of Rs.65,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. as against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/-

3. The appellant corporation (insurer) was the second respondent before the tribunal. The second respondent herein (insured) was the first respondent before the tribunal. . The petition was filed claiming a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- by the claimant, the first respondent herein for the injuries sustained in a road accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry of the second respondent herein.

4. The case of the first respondent/claimant in brief is as follows:- That on 08.05.1997 at about 2.00 a.m. petitioner was going in his lorry bearing Regn. No. TN 28 Y 7029 as a substitute driver of the lorry and when the lorry was proceeding near Kudukuli Privu Road on its way to Salem from Bangalore laden with goods , the lorry which was coming from opposite in a rash and negligent manner over took another lorry and on seeing the same, the driver of the lorry in which the petitioner was proceeding lost his control and over turned the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and in that manner the door of the lorry got opened and the petitioner was thrown out of the lorry which resulted in the accident. In the accident, the petitioner sustained fracture on his right femur and grievous injuries all over his body. Therefore, the petition claiming compensation under various heads in all Rs.1,50,000/- from the respondents therein together with interest.

5. The first respondent before the tribunal remained set exparte.

6. The second respondent insurance company before the tribunal filed their counter resisting the claim of the petitioner and contending that the petition himself was an insured and as such petition for compensation is not maintainable. There is a delay of 10 days in giving the first information to the police. It is alleged that the petitioner traveled in the lorry as a substitute driver at the time of the accident and sustained injuries in the accident. However, it is surprised to note that the driver who was actually on the wheel did not sustain any injury. This would show that the driver (1st respondent before the tribunal) was not at fault. The driver of the petitioner has not preferred any police complaint. Despite there were number of hospitals nearby the accident spot, the petitioner was not admitted in any of such hospital. These would show that the claim form has been prepared only after making ready all the documents for laying the claim. The door was happened to be opened only due to the improper maintenance of the lorry by its owner, the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent corporation is not liable to pay any compensation. In any event, the claim of the petitioner is exorbitant. The petitioner is put to strict proof of his age, avocation, income, nature of injuries, period of treatment, medicinal expenses, disabilities sustained due to accidental injuries and their consequent impact on his day to day life and style. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. The appellant is the insurance company who questioned the liability of the insurer to pay the compensation to the claimant, who himself happened to be the owner of the lorry involved in the accident.

8. Mr. S. Arun Kuamr, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company would submit in his argument that the tribunal had not considered the position of law in respect of granting of compensation for the owner of the vehicle himself but had wrongly granted the compensation. He would further submit in his argument that the accident is said to have taken place at 2.00 a.m. according to the evidence of