Amount of compensation to be paid by Insurance Company.

A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.

1. By a common Judgment, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dindigul (Principal District Judge, Dindigul), disposed of M.C.O.P. Nos.1260/94, 55/95 and 56 of 1995 and other Claim Petitions on 28.02.1997.

2. C.M.A. No.1228 of 1997 has been filed by the claimants in M.C.O.P. No.1260 of 1994, claiming enhanced compensation over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal. C.M.A. No.88 of 1998 has been filed by the claimant in M.C.O.P. No.55 of 1995, claiming enhanced compensation over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. C.M.A. No.327 of 1998 has been filed by the claimant in M.C.O.P. No.56 of 1995, claiming enhanced compensation. C.M.A. Nos.1331, 1337 and 1333 of 1998 have been filed by the Insured (owner of the vehicle), questioning the correctness of the Judgment of the Tribunal, exonerating the Insurance Company with reference to M.C.O.P. Nos.1260/94, 55/95 and 56/95 respectively.

3. Dr. Premachandran, Dr. Reshmi and Dr. Shanthi, working in Arvind Eye Hospital, Madurai, on the fateful day that was on 08.07.1994 at about 1.30 P.M., along with others, proceeded from Madurai in a Tempo Traveller Mini Van bearing Registration No.TN-59 A-3906 to render service in a Eye Treatment Camp that was being conducted by Aravind Eye Hospitals, Madurai at Sundarapuram near Coimbatore. At about 3.30 P.M., the van reached the place called Palakanuthu and because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, it dashed against a tree and in the accident, Dr.Premachandran died while Dr. Reshmi and Dr. Shanthi sustained injuries.

4. In M.C.O.P. No.1260 of 1994, the claimants viz. , the mother, widow and the minor son of Dr. Premachandran claimed that they should be paid a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. In M.C.O.P. No. 55/95, Dr. Reshmi claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-by way of compensation. Dr. Shanthi, the Claimant in M.C.O.P. 56 of 1995 claimed a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- by way of compensation.

The first respondent in all the above M.C.O.Ps. viz. , Aravind Eye Hospital, represented by its Secretary was absent and hence it was set ex parte. The 2nd respondent viz. , the United India Insurance Company Limited, Madurai, resisted the claims, contending that the accident did not take place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. According to the 2nd respondent, the driver was driving the vehicle slowly and cautiously, but however, because of the heavy rain and failure of the brake, the driver was not able to control it and only in those circumstances, the vehicle dashed against the tree. Hence, the accident occurred only due to the act of God. That apart, the 2nd respondent also contended that the first respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy inasmuch as in the said vehicle viz., Tempo Traveller Mini Van, more persons were carried contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy and hence, only the first respondent is solely liable to pay the compensation, if any.

5. At the trial, witnesses were examined by both sides and several exhibits were marked. The Tribunal, after elaborately considering the materials available on record, came to the conclusion that the claimants in M.C.O.P. No. 1260/94 viz ., the appellants in C.M.A. 1228/97 would be entitled for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of compensation. The Tribunal fixed the compensation payable to the claimant in M.C.O.P. 55/95 viz., the appellant in C.M.A. 88/98 as Rs.45,500/-. So far as the claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 56 of 1995 (appellant in C.M.A. 327 of 1998), the Tribunal fixed the compensation at Rs.67,500/-.

The Tribunal also held that since the injured carried more passengers in the said vehicle than prescribed in the terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount and that the entire compensation has to be paid only by the Insured viz., the owner of the vehicle.

6. The following questions arise for consideration in this Appeal:

(a)