JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.17 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Erode.

This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the Award dated 07.12.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Erode in M.C.O.P.No.17 of 2017, directing the appellant/Insurance Company to pay the Claimants a sum of Rs.14,65,800/- as compensation for the death of the deceased Sadayappan @ Dhanapal due to the accident, which occurred on 03.08.2016. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.14,65,800/- on the ground that the entire policy conditions have not been produced by the Insurance Company. Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Claimants are the dependants of the deceased viz. Sadayappan @ Dhanapal.

2. The accident occurred on 03.08.2016 at about 4.00 am at Pennagaram to Hogenakkal Main Road. After the accident, a Criminal Case was registered by the Hogenakkal Police Station on the basis of the complaint given by one Lingeshwaran, who travelled in the car, witnessed the accident and was examined as P.W.2. In the F.I.R., it has been stated that on 02.08.2016, the 4th Respondent herein by name Gowthaman and his friends went for a tour to Hogenakkal in a Qualis Car bearing Reg.No.TN-49-H-1913 and that on 03.08.2016, the 4th Respondent, who is the owner of the said Car had driven the Car towards Pennagaram to Hogenakkal Road. The deceased Sadayappan @ Dhanapal, who is said to be the driver of the car was sitting in the car along with other friends. When the car reached near Hogenakkal around 4.00 a.m., on account of the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 4th Respondent, he, who lost control, dashed against a tree planted on the left side of the road. As a result, one Sugumar and the deceased Dhanapal @ Sadayappan sustained grievous injury and died on the spot and that others suffered serious injury. From the F.I.R., it is very clear that the car was driven by the 4th respondent herein.

3. Before the Tribunal, a different/dramatic stand was taken that the deceased Sadayappan @ Dhanapal was an Engineering graduate and was employed as a Driver under the 4th Respondent for a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. As per the statement of the complainant/Lingeshwaran, the deceased Dhanapal had driven the Car from Elavanatham and on 03.08.2016 early morning, due to tiredness, he handed over the Car to the 4th respondent/owner of the car and that while he was driving the Car, the accident took place and in the accident two persons died and others suffered injury.

4. The Insurance Company took a stand before the Tribunal that the policy taken was 'Act only' (otherwise known as 'third party') policy and that as per the policy, the Driver-cum-Owner would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and for the purpose of claiming compensation, it has been stated in the Claim Petition that Sadayappan @ Dhanapal was driving the Car. It was further stated by the Insurance Company that the deceased Sadayappan @ Dhanapal was not at all a driver of the vehicle at the time of accident, as the vehicle was originally driven by the 4th respondent herein.

5. The Tribunal, after analyzing the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the entire policy conditions in respect of the car have not been produced by the Insurance Company and that the premium for a sum of Rs.5,081/- was paid as T.P. Premium. Unless or otherwise the entire policy conditions have been produced, it would be very difficult to analyze as to whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation or not. Though the Tribunal is entitled to take a different view from the F.I.R., which is based on the evidence, the F.I.R. can be looked into for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction.

6. As per the Policy, the owner-cum-driver alone is entitled to compensation. Even going by th