JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.74 of 2014 dated 23.12.2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Judge), Dindigul.

2.The appellants herein are the petitioners and the respondents herein are the respondents in the claim petition. The appellants herein have filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.74 of 2016, claiming compensation for the death of one Sivakumar in an accident that took place on 28.01.2010. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9,48,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Forty Eight Thousand only) as compensation. Against which, the appellants herein have preferred this appeal.

3.A brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.74 of 2014 is as follows:

On 28.01.2010, at about 2.45 a.m., while the deceased was returning after supplying milk in a van bearing registration No.TN-57-F-6654. The driver of the van drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a lorry bearing registration No.TN-57-W-9390, which was parked on the left side edge of the road. The deceased died on the spot. The deceased was working as a helper in the KC milk company and was earning Rs.200/- per day. The claimants are the dependants of the deceased and they claimed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) as compensation.

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

A water tank lorry bearing registration No.TN-57-W-9390 was responsible for the accident. The owner of the lorry and the insurance company of the lorry are necessary parties. The petitioners 2 and 3 are married and they are not depending on the income of the deceased. The driver of the first respondent van was not having valid driving licence. The deceased was travelling as a gracious passenger in the goods vehicle. The policy is an act only policy. The second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

5.On the side of the claimant, one witness was examined and seven documents were marked. On the side of the second respondent therein, one witness was examined and one document was marked. After trial, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9,48,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Forty Eight Thousand only) as compensation. Against which, the appellant herein has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

6.On the side of the appellants, it is stated that the Tribunal failed to consider that the deceased was an employee of KC milk company, even Ex.P5 was filed to prove the profession. The deceased travelled as a loadman for loading and unloading the milk cans. It is wrong to state that the deceased travelled as an unauthorized passenger. The premium for the employee was paid and the second respondent is liable to pay compensation. A sum of Rs.25/- was paid as a premium for the employees and Rs.100/- was paid for owner and driver and that the policy itself is a package policy, and that the second respondent is liable to pay compensation and prayed the compensation is to be enhanced.

7.On the side of the appellants, it is stated that even in the FIR, it is clearly stated that the deceased was working as a salesman and he travelled for loading and unloading the milk cans. It is stated that in the inquest report, it was stated that the deceased was working as a helper in the KC milk company. The complainant also has given a statement under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., stating that the deceased was a helper in the KC milk company and that the van is having a seating capacity of (2+1) in the cabin. Ex.R1, policy is a package policy and that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. In support of his contention, a judgment passed by this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Backiam and others in C.M.A.No.31 of 2008 is cited.

8.The learned counsel for the appellants would rely upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Manimegalai and others in C.M.A.Nos.2405 and 3065 of 2018.