The judgment established that the Insurance Company's liability to pay compensation is determined by the specific conditions in the insurance policy and that recovery of compensation from the owner of the vehicle is permissible.

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the Judgment and Decree passed in MCOP.No.44 of 2004 on 19.04.2007 on the file of the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate-judge) of Mettur, Salem District.)

1. The Insurance Company has come forward with this appeal against the grant of an award of Rs.5,68,000/- in respect of an injury caused to a cleaner of a JCB vehicle, in MCOP.No.44 of 2004 on 19.04.2007 on the file of the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate-judge) of Mettur, Salem District.

2. The claimant is a cleaner of a JCB vehicle. The accident is admitted. But the liability is questioned by the Insurance company on the ground that the JCB vehicle which is insured is not covered under the policy if there is over-turning of the vehicle. The main defence by the Insurance Company is that, since the injury took place due to the over-turning of the vehicle and thereby the injured person's leg was crushed and the policy does not specifically cover for over-turning and also does not cover for any other person other than the driver, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation.

3. Secondly, they would also mainly contend that the quantum of award granted by the court below is exorbitant. They would also contend that the award passed on the basis of multiplier theory in respect of an injury is un-known to law and it is not in accordance with the decisions of this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, the various headings including loss of earning power after applying the multiplier theory and on every other heading which is given is only a repetition and the amounts have been given exorbitantly and they would also like to point out that even the amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded under the headings loss of marital life, even though there is no proof for any loss to the marital life and loss of earning capacity separately is not in consonance with the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court. Therefore, the grant of an award of Rs.5,68,000/- awarded by the court below is very very high. On this ground also, they oppose the grant of compensation. Hence, they pray for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent/claimant would contend that the copy of the policy was marked by them as Ex.P.10 and the original true copy of the policy has been marked by the Insurance Company as Ex.B1. But as per the policy, there is no clause which specifically says that the policy is not covered in respect of over-turning of the vehicle. The annexures have not been produced. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if there is no specific proof from the policy produced into the Court for prohibition in respect of the coverage, then the presumption would be that the policy covers everything including the over-turning of the vehicle. Therefore, the defence that the policy does not cover over-turning of the vehicle is not open to the Insurance Company was the main argument of the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. He would also contend that though the Officer of the Insurance Company has been examined, he has not specifically denied in respect of the policy, but he also has accepted that pay and recovery is permitted. As far as the quantum is concerned, he would contend that as per the Doctor's evidence, there is 71% disability and amputation of the leg has been done. Therefore, his future earning capacity is totally lost. Hence, the award granted by the court below is fair, reasonable and correct. Hence, would plead for the dismissal of the appeal.

6. The owner of the vehicle, respondent No.2 though had appeared through an Advocate in the lower court, inspite of the notice being served on him in the Appellate Court, has not engaged an Advocate and not appeared in court. His name has been printed yet none appeared. No representation for the owner of the vehicle.

7. Heard all the parties concerned. The short point for considerat