JUDGMENT

Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.193 of 1996 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(II Additional District and Sessions Court), Krishnagiri, dated 07.09.2000, the Insurance Company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in respect of liability.

2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of Vasudevan who died in the road accident that occurred on 01.12.1993.

3. The Tribunal after evaluating the evidence has held that the deceased Vasudevan travelled as a substitute driver and hence the Insurance Company is liable to compensate the legal representatives of the deceased and granted a compensation of Rs.4,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of realisation.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company Mr.S.Arunkumar would vehemently contend that the deceased who is the owner of the goods carriage vehicle was not covered under the policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. To buttress his arguments, the below said judgments were referred to:

i) United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Lakshmi reported in

1989-2-LW.

ii) Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and another reported in 2004 (4) CTC 716 (SC).

iii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Meera Bai and Others reported in (2006) 9 SCC 174.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants would strenuously argue that the deceased Vasudevan was travelling as a substitute driver, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to him. Based on the said details, the Tribunal has granted compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased needs no interference.

6. At trial, on the claimants' side, the 1st petitioner has examined herself as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. On the respondents’ side no witness was examined.

7. The judgment rendered in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v.

Lakshmi reported in 1989-2-LW was referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant in order to contend that Act policy covers only liability incurred by the insured in respect of death or bodily injury or damage to any property of a 3rd party, person (owner of the lorry) travelling in the lorry who died in an accident, not covered. The owner of the lorry travelled in the lorry who died in an accident, not covered and held that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

8. In Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and another reported in 2004 (4) CTC 716 (SC), the appellant/claimant with certain other person was travelling in his own Jeep, the Jeep met with an accident, the claim petitions were filed by the injured as well as the owner. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal directed the appellant/owner and the insurance company to pay compensation. This was challenged by the insurance company before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, wherein, the appeal was allowed and it was held that the claimant who was the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. This Judgment was sought to be challenged before the Apex Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it has not been shown that the policy covered any risk to the owner himself, and owner of the vehicle can claim only if a personal accident insurance has been taken out and the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was confirmed by dismissing the appeal.

9. It is the evidence of PW1-Jayanthi that on 01.12.1993 at about

11.30 p.m., the deceased Vasudevan, owner of the goods carriage vehicle was travelling along with his driver Kuldeep along Hosur-Krishnagiri road. At the point of Kolappalli inkulab Hotel, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, he hit on the rear side of lorry which was proceeding in the same direction. It is the case of the claimants that due to rash and negligent dri