J U D G M E N T

The matter is heard through "Video Conferencing".

This appeal has been filed against dismissal of claim petition by the award dated 16.10.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.193 of 2016, on the file of the District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Karaikal.

2.The appellants filed M.C.O.P. No.193 of 2016, on the file of the District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Karaikal, claiming a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Karthick who died in the accident that took place on 10.02.2016.

3.According to the appellants, on the date of accident at about 6.00 am, when the deceased was riding his Motorcycle bearing Registration No. PY- 02-P-8096 along with pillion rider from Vanjore to T.R.Pattinam, by Nagore Salai, Gandhi Road at T.R.Pattinam, near Ellaiamman Koil Street, from South to North, while making a turn on the road, the Motorcycle got into the sandy side part of the road and hit by a wooden plate on the vegetable shop and hit on the compound wall and caused the accident. In the accident the deceased sustained fatal injuries. Hence, the appellants filed the claim petition, claiming compensation against the respondent as insurer of the said Motorcycle.

4.The respondent - Insurance Company filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the appellants. According to the respondent, the language used in the Insurance Certificate - “Motor Insurance Certificate cum policy schedule Motorized – Two Wheelers package policy – Zone B” does not presume that the policy taken by the deceased is a package policy. The premium paid by the deceased in the policy will not cover personal injuries sustained by him/owner of the vehicle and the policy issued to the deceased will not cover owner's entitlement. The deceased has paid a gross premium of Rs.554/-. The appellants failed to produce driving license of the deceased. The accident is self inflicted by the deceased. In the absence of separate premium paid for owner's coverage, the appellants are entitled to only specific compensation amount. The total compensation claimed by the appellant is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5.Before the Tribunal, the 1st appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and examined one A.Ramanathan as P.W.2 and marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12. The respondent examined their Official viz., A.Lawrence as R.W.1 and marked 1 document as Ex.R1.

6.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the policy issued by the respondent-Insurance Company is package policy and no premium was paid by the deceased for personal accident cover under Ex.P3 Insurance Policy.

7.Challenging the dismissal of claim petition by the award dated

16.10.2019, made in M.C.O.P. No.193 of 2016, the appellants have come out with the present appeal.

8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition when the policy issued by the respondent is a package policy. The policy issued by the respondent covers the risk of the owner and and driver. It is not necessary to pay separate premium to cover the risk of the owner and driver. The Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim petition and prayed for allowing the appeal.

9.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company made submissions in support of the award of the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

10.Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the respondent-Insurance Company and perused the materials available on record.

11.It is the contention of the appellants themselves that their son while riding the Motorcycle from South to North, while making a turn on the road, the vehicle got into the sandy side part of the road and hit by a wooden plate on the vegetable shop and on the compound wall of one Packirisamy and caused the accident. In the accident, he sustained severe injuries and died. This clearl