The insurance company is not statutorily liable to pay compensation for the death of an occupant of a vehicle covered by an 'Act Policy' under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

R. Subbiah, J.

The appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal questioning the correctness and/or validity of the Judgment dated 14.09.2018 passed by the Tribunal in MCOP No. 552 of 2015. By the said Judgment, the Tribunal determined the compensation amount payable to the claimants at Rs.36,11,545/- and directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay the same.

2. The respondents 1 to 4/claimants have filed MCOP No. 552 of 2015 before the Tribunal by contending that on 30.12.2014 at about 7.00 am, the deceased Periyasamy, his wife/first claimant and seven others were travelling in a Toyota Qualis Car bearing Registration No. TN 22 P 5117. When the car was proceeding on the Bangalore Bye Pass Road, near Kandampatti at Salem, the driver of the car drove it in a rash and negligent manner. While so, the left side back wheel tyre of the car bursted. In the impact, the driver of the car lost control and crashed the car against the centre median divider of the road. As a consequence thereof, the car capsized due to which the deceased Periyasamy sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the deceased was admitted in Dharan Hospital, Seelanaickenpatti, Salem where he died inspite of treatment. According to the claimants, the deceased Periyasamy was 39 years old at the time of accident. He was the owner of six heavy Ashok Leyland Torres Truck and was doing transport business. It is further stated that the deceased was earning Rs.60,000/- per month and due to his death, the family lost the sole bread winner. According to the claimants, the fifth respondent herein is the owner of the car and the appellant herein is the insurer of the car. It is their contention that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the fifth respondent herein and therefore, the owner and insurer of the car are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.40 lakhs claimed in the claim petition.

3. Repudiating the averments made in the claim petition, the appellant/Insurance Company has filed a counter statement before the Tribunal. It is the defence of the appellant that contract of insurance of a motor vehicle is governed by the provisions of the Insurance Act. The terms of the policy, as also the quantum of premium payable for insuring the vehicle, depends not only upon the capacity of the vehicle, but also the purpose for which the vehicle is being used. It was contended that by taking an "Act Policy" the owner of the vehicle fulfils his statutory obligation as contained under Section 147 of The Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the liability of the insurer is either statutory or contractual. If it is contractual, its liability extends to the risk covered by the Insurance Policy. If additional risks are sought to be covered, additional premium ought to have been paid. But in the present case, the owner of the Vehicle has taken only an "Act Policy". Further the deceased who was travelling in a private car is not a third party as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the claimants are not eligible for any compensation from the insurer. Even according to the claimants, the accident was as a result of bursting of the tyre of the car. If it is so, no negligence can be attributed as against the driver of the car. In any event, in the above stated facts, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation from the insurance company and therefore, the appellant herein prayed for dismissal of the Claim Petition.

4. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and Exs.P-1 to P-22 were marked. On behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company, one Gomakal was examined as R.W.1, but no document was marked on their side. The Insurance Policy in question was marked before the Tribunal as Ex.C-1. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, concluded that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, the accident had occurred. By point