JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2013 in M.C.O.P.No.274 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Judge), Dindigul.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.274 of 2012 dated 18.03.2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Judge), Dindigul.

2. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the first respondent herein is the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 4 herein are the respondents 1, 2 and 4 in the claim petition. The first respondent has filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.274 of 2012, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant, in an accident that took place on 05.07.2009. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,09,300/- (Rupees One Lakhs Nine Thousand and Three Hundred only) as compensation. Against which, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. Brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.274 of 2012 is as follows:

On 05.07.2009, at about 01.00 p.m., the petitioner was travelling in a car bearing registration No.TN-37-A-4433 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner along the Dindigul – Kodaikanal road. At that time, another car bearing registration no.TN-02-R-4573 driven by the third respondent came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner's case. The petitioner sustained injuries. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) as compensation.

4. A Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent therein is as follows:

The petition is not maintainable. The petition has to prove the validity of the insurance policy. The petitioner has to prove that there is no policy violations. The petitioner is not responsible to pay compensation. The claim is excessive.

5. Brief substance of the counter filed by the fourth respondent therein is as follows:

The accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the third respondent. The third respondent was not rash or negligent and the first respondent is responsible for the accident. FIR and chargesheet were registered only against the first respondent. The claim is excessive.

6. On the side of the petitioner, two witness were examined and six documents were marked. On the side of the respondents therein, one witness was examined and one document was marked. After trial, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,09,300/- (Rupees One Lakh Nine Thousand and Three Hundred only) as compensation to be paid by the appellant. Against which, the appellant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the Tribunal is erroneous in fastening the entire liability on the appellant. The claimant claimed negligence on both the drivers. The criminal Court records are not binding on the Tribunal and negligence has to be independently proved before the Tribunal. In the absence of contra evidence on the side of the fourth respondent, the Tribunal ought to have given importance to the evidence of the first respondent and ought to have fixed the negligence equally on both the drivers.

8. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the policy is only Act policy, which does not cover the occupants of the private car. The Tribunal has erred in following the unreported judgment of this Court and has wrongly interpreted the word “extended cover” and construed the policy as 'comprehensive policy'. The Tribunal has failed to note that the words 'extended cover' means that when a limited liability provided under the Motor Vehicle Act is extended to cover an unlimited liability, on payment of additional premium for that particular item of risk such an act is called extended cover. The Tribunal has failed to note that the payment of premium of Rs.670/- as the basic premium is to cover the damage caused to th