The liability of the insurance company and the assessment of just and fair compensation amounts based on the nature of injuries and loss of dependency.

JUDGMENT :

R. Subbiah, J.

(Prayer: C.M.A.No.1528 of 2020 filed under Section 173 of The Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.07.2019 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 7259 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Small Causes Court) Chennai.)

1. All these appeals are filed by the appellant/Insurance Company, questioning the common award dated 31.07.2019 passed by the Tribunal in MCOP Nos. 7259, 7260, 7261, 7262, 7263, 7265, 7266 and 7271 of 2014 thereby directing the appellant to pay the compensation amount to the claimants.

2. Before the Tribunal, eight Original Petitions have been filed by the survivors as well as by the legal heirs of the deceased in the accident that had taken place on 25.12.2006. The said Claim Petitions have been filed by them, for the injuries sustained by themselves in the accident as well as for the death of their mother, father or brother as the case may be, of those who accompanied them in the vehicle. In other words, on the fateful day, in the accident that had taken place on 25.12.2006, five persons died and three persons sustained grievous injuries, which resulted in filing eight Original Petitions seeking compensation.

3. In the Claim Petitions filed before the Tribunal in MCOP Nos. 7259, 7260, 7261, 7262, 7263, 7265, 7266 and 7271 of 2014, it was stated by the Claimants that on 25.12.2006, they were travelling from Pallikaranai to Thiruvannamalai Temple in a TATA Sumo Vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 07 AB 1258. When the vehicle was proceeding near Gandhi Nagar, Acharapakkam, the driver of the Vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner, with the result, the vehicle fell into a deep pit on the left side of the road. In the impact, the vehicle capsized and five of the occupants died on the spot, leaving three others injured. According to the claimants, the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car and therefore, the owner of the Car as well as the Insurer of the Car are jointly liable to pay compensation.

4. The appellant-Insurance Company resisted the claim petitions by contending that the accident did not occur in the manner as stated in the claim petitions. It was also contended that the claimants have to prove that the owner of the Car had a valid insurance policy at the time of accident and there was no violation of any of the conditions of the policy. In the absence of such proof, the Insurance Company cannot be expected to indemnify the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation for the victims of the accident.

5. Before the Tribunal, common evidence was let in all the Original Petitions. On behalf of the claimants, the survivors of the accident or the injured in the accident have examined themselves as PW1 and PW3, besides three other witnesses were examined as PWs.2, 4 and 5. On behalf of the claimants, Exs. P1 to P54 were marked. On the contrary, the owner of the vehicle or the insurer of the vehicle did not examine any witness or marked any document in support of their defence.

6. The Tribunal upon analysing the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the Claim Petitions by passing a common award dated 31.07.2019, awarding various amounts in favour of the claimants in the eight Original Petitions filed by them. As against the award dated 31.07.2019, the Insurance Company has come up with these appeals questioning their liability to pay the compensation amount as also the quantum of compensation.

7. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that as per the Insurance Policy, only 5 persons are entitled to travel in the vehicle, but at the time of accident, excess passengers have travelled in the vehicle. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, there was a violation of the conditions of the policy and therefore, they are not liable to pay