The Tribunal has jurisdiction to award compensation for property damage caused by a motor vehicle accident, including indirect damages from chemical leakage.

1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.4.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub-Judge, Sankari (for brevity 'the Tribunal') in MACT OP No. 64 of 2000.

2. Shorn of the minute details, the facts, which are germane and necessary for the disposal of this appeal, are as follows.
2.1 On 24.11.1999, about 0230 hrs, the respondent No. 3 drove the tanker lorry, belonging to respondent No. 2, bearing registration No. TN 04 - D 1427 in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden brake at M.V. Tyre Retreading Company on NH 47 Salem - Bhavani Main Road, due to which the vehicle capsized. On account of the said incident, the laden chemicals came out and caused fire accident, as a result of which the house of respondent No. 1 - claimant got totally burnt and heavy loss was caused to the properties in the said premises. Hence, the respondent No. 1 filed a petition seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 for the damage caused to the property.
2.2 Denying and disputing the claim made by the respondent No. 1 - claimant, the appellant insurance company filed a detailed counter - affidavit, wherein it was stated that the fire accident had taken place due to burning of dangerous and hazardous chemical, viz., acetone, weighing 9.5 tonnes in the tanker lorry, which caught fire, after the vehicle capsized; this claim will come under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 and not under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act'); there was no collision of the vehicle insured with the appellant against the thatched house of the respondent No. 1; the driver of the lorry was not having a valid endorsement in the driving licence authorising him to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to the human life as required under R.9 (3) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, as amended with effect from 26.3.1993; the damages claimed by the respondent No. 1 for the property were highly exaggerated in order to make an unlawful gain and hence, the claim petition may be dismissed.
2.3 Before the Tribunal, the respondent No. 1 - claimant was examined as PW 1 and Exhs. P1 to P8 documents were marked on his side. On the side of the appellant insurance company, RW 1 and RW 2 were examined and Exhs. R1 to R3 were marked. The driving licences of the driver of the lorry were marked as Exhs. W1 and W2.
2.4 The Tribunal, after examining all the materials placed before it, came to a conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tanker lorry. Having held so, the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 along with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum to the respondent No. 1 - claimant and accordingly, directed the appellant insurance company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the tanker lorry. However, the Tribunal exonerated the respondent No. 4 - insurer of the material, which was loaded in the lorry, from liability. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company emphatically contended by raising the following grounds:
(i) The Tribunal had misdirected itself in relying upon the evidence of PW 1 - respondent No. 1 - claimant and Exhs. P1 to P7 and fixing the entire negligence on the driver of the tanker lorry belonging to the respondent No. 2 and insured with the appellant insurance company.
(ii) The Tribunal ought to have