Injured himself was driving the car rashly and negligently.

Ramanujam, J. —

In this appeal an interesting question of law arises, as to whether the legal representatives of the deceased who died in a motor accident, and who was himself responsible for the accident could claim compensation against the owner of the vehicle who was not directly or vicariously responsible for the accident.

2. On 2nd May, 1973, one Krishnamurthi was driving a car MDA 3774, belonging to the first respondent herein and insured with the second respondent, on the national highway from Madras to Dindigul. When the car was about to reach Manapparai, it dashed against a tree standing on the left edge of the road and as a result of the impact the said Krishnamurthi died on the spot, steering rod hitting his chest. The wife and children of the deceased Krishnamurthi filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruchirappalli, claiming a compensation of Rs. 50,000 from the owner of the tar as well as the Insurance Company with which it was registered, on the ground that it was an inevitable accident and as such they are liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased.

3. The said claim petition was contested by the first respondent, the owner of the car, on the ground that he was not aware of the details of the journey, that he never requested Krishnamurthi to travel in the car MDA 3774, that there was no contract of employment with him, that his son Doctor Jayaraman also did not ask or direct Krishnamurthi to drive the car and that therefore he is not liable to pay any compensation for the death of the deceased. The second respondent Insurance Company denied that Krishnamurthi drove the vehicle at the time of the accident, that he had a driving licence or that he was authorised by the owner to drive the vehicle and stated that there was no contract of employment either with owner of the car or with his son by the deceased Krishnamurthi that the insurance policy does not cover a claim of this nature, that the owner of the car never invited Krishnamurthi to travel in the car or to drive the car, that Krishnamurthi and members of his family were gratuitous passengers in the car, that there is no liability on the part of the owner of the vehicle to insure the safety of the gratuituous passengers and that the accident had occurred due to his own rashness and negligence. There is no liability on the part of the owner of the vehicle or the Insurance Company to pay compensation. In any event the compensation claimed was excessive. On these rival contentions the Tribunal has set down the following two questions for consideration: —

1. Whether the deceased drove the vehicle MDA 3774, what was the cause of the accident and whether he died due to accident?

2. To what compensation if any are the petitioners entitled to and against which of the respondents?

4. After analysing the evidence in detail, the Tribunal found as follows:

The deceased Krishnamurthi, his wife and children accompanied one Dr. Jayaraman from Dindigul to Madras in the car MDA 3774, belonging to the first respondent herein who is the father of Dr. Jayaraman. All of them returned in the car from Madras on 1st May, 1973. When they reached Trichy, the driver of the car by name Subramanyam felt extremely tired, and the deceased relieved him and drove the car from Trichy. While they neared Manapparai the car dashed against a tree on the left edge of the road. As a result of the impact the car was seriously damaged and Krishnamurthi sustained fatal injuries. On the facts found the Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the deceased and that as such the legal representatives of the deceased cannot claim compensation as against the owner or the Insurance Company. However, the Tribunal went into the question relating” to the quantum of compensation and held that a sum of Rs. 33,600 will be a fair and reasonable compensation. But in view of its earlier finding, that the deceased himself w