JUDGEMENT

In its enthusiasm to award compensation to a victim who had died on account of the use of motor vehicle, the Tribunal below has twisted out of context the meaning of the word "third party" vis-a-vis an Insurance Policy. The facts in brief are as follows.

2. The petitioners before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Vellore in M.C.O.P.No.423 of 2009 had filed the above claim petition against one Perumal and the appellant herein seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of one Ramesh in a road accident that had taken place on 29.07.2000.

3. The occurrence itself makes interesting reading. It is stated that the deceased Ramesh and one Baskar of Sethumadurai Village had taken a load of sand to one Balaraman at Sainathapuram, in a tipper lorry bearing registration No.TN 23 AC 3651. The said Baskar had given instructions to the driver of the lorry to unload the sand. The driver inturn had reversed the lorry rashly and negligently and with great speed, as a result of which the lorry hit one Pashan's compound wall. As a result of the impact, the lorry had fallen upon Ramesh who was standing there. The injuries sustained by him were fatal in nature resulting in his instantaneous death.

4. The accident had occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry who had been impleaded as the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent was the driver and the deceased Ramesh was the owner of the lorry.

5. The appellant / Insurance Company which was arrayed as the

2nd respondent in the claim petition had filed a counter inter alia contending that the deceased Ramesh was a registered owner of the lorry in question and neither the owner nor the legal heirs of the vehicle had been impleaded as a party to the proceedings. Therefore, it is the contention of the Insurance Company that since their liability to compensate is coexistent with their insured, the absence to implead the insured absolves the Insurance Company from making any payments.

6. That apart, the deceased being the owner of the vehicle was not a third party and therefore the Insurance Company was not liable to compensate the petitioners for the death since the vehicle did not possess any personal accident policy and neither was the additional premium paid. Therefore, the appellant / Insurance Company would seek to have themselves absolved. They had also questioned the quantum of compensation claimed as being excessive.

7. The Tribunal below on considering the evidence on record and after observing that no additional premium had been paid for the owner proceeded to observe that in all the Judgements that had been relied on by the appellant / Insurance Company the owner of the vehicle was also the driver of the vehicle. However, in the instant case, the deceased was standing behind the vehicle and therefore was a third party. Therefore, the Tribunal had held that the appellant / Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. Ultimately, compensation of a sum of Rs.8,35,000/- together with interest at 7.5%

was granted.

8. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant / Insurance Company is before this Court.

9. Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant / Insurance Company would submit that the Insurance Company had to be exonerated since the petitioners are the legal heirs of the owner of the vehicle itself. The learned counsel would further submit that the policy did not have a personal accident cover and there was no third party involvement in the accident.

10. The learned counsel would submit that the liability of the Insurance Company runs parallel with its insured and unless the insured is impleaded as party (in the instant case he is passed away therefore his legal heirs ought to have been impleaded) the claim has to necessarily fail. The learned counsel would rely upon the following Judgements:

"1. 2004 (2) TN MAC 144 (SC) - Dhanraj Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., another.

2. 2011 (1) TN