Liability of Insurance Company is determined based on policy conditions and extra premium payment under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the order made in M.C.O.P.No.336 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum Sub Court, Tiruchengode dated 27.10.2009 for fixation of liability alone.)

1.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants, challenging the award dated 27.10.2009 made in M.C.O.P.No.336 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum Sub Court, Tiruchengode exonerating the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company from its liability.

2. The appellants/claimants filed M.C.O.P.No. 336 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum Sub Court, Tiruchengode, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Madheshwaran, son of the appellants No.1 and 2 and brother of the appellants No.3 and 4, who died in the accident that took place on 30.01.2004.

3. The case of the claimants is that on 30.01.2004 at about 11.00 p.m., when the deceased Madheshwaran was working as a cleaner in a lorry bearing Reg.No.KA.04/D.9799, the driver of the lorry drove the vehicle at Vengaikurichi to Veerappaur Road near Vellapoolampatti and Aranampatti in a rash and negligent manner and capsized the vehicle. Due to the said impact, the said Madheshwaran sustained injuries on his head and all over the body and died on the spot. The said accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Hence, the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased.

4. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the first respondent/owner of the lorry has not paid any extra premium (i.e., Rs.25/- as additional premium for each and every additional employed persons engaged in the vehicle as driver/coolie/cleaner) covering the employees under the common law and therefore, granted a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as total compensation and directed the first respondent/owner of the lorry to pay the compensation to the claimants.

5. Challenging the award dated 27.10.2009 made in M.C.O.P.No.336 of 2008 exonerating the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company from its liability, the appellants/claimants have come out with the present appeal.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants, because the policy has not covered for the deceased and no extra premium has been paid to cover the risk of the person who travelled in the vehicle along with the driver, but, it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the vehicle which was involved in the accident has covered the risk of the person who employed as cleaner in the vehicle. Therefore, the claims Tribunal ought to have fixed the liability on the 2nd respondent also. Hence, he prays to fix the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimants.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent- Insurance Company submitted that the Policy do not cover the persons travelled in the lorry since the 1st respondent had not paid any extra premium for covering the employees under the common law. The first respondent had violated the Policy conditions and hence, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal have given valid reason for giving such a finding. In any event, the amount awarded by the Tribunal fixing the liability on the first respondent is just and reasonable and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Further, in support of his contention, he relied upon the following Judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. M.Padmini and others, reported in 2017 (1) TN MAC 566, wherein, it is relevant to extract the following Paragraphs, which reads as follows:

“5.It is not an easy route that the Tribunal has adopted to conclude that the Appellant was not