IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 30/01/2004

Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM

and

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R. SINGHARAVELU

C.M.A. No. 456 of 1997

Kalavathy .. Appellant/1st Respondent.

-Vs-

1. Annammal,

2. Kanaka,

3. Neelambal,

4. Duraiammal,

5. Ramalingam,

6. Shanthi, .. Petitioners.

7. The United India Insurance

Company Limited,

Divisional Office, 730, Mount Road,

Madras-6.

.. 2nd Respondent.

.. Respondents.

Appeal against Judgement and decree dated 20-11-1996 and made in M.C.O.P.No.

1134 of 1994, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Prl. District

Judge) Tiruvannamalai.

For Appellant : Mr. T.M. Venkataraman for

Mr.T. Chandrasekaran

For 7th Respondent : Mrs. Radhika Krishna

No appearance:- For Respondents 1 to 6.

:JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by P. Sathasivam, J.,)

First respondent in M.A.C.T. O.P.No. 1134 of 1994 on the file of Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai, owner of lorry bearing registration

No. KA03 3614 which involved in the accident is the appellant in the above

appeal. In respect of death of one Thoppai Konar in a road accident that took

place on 24-2-94, his wife, daughters and son have prayed for a compensation

of Rs.1,50,000/-. Before the Tribunal, 5th claimant, son of the deceased was

examined as P.W.1 and one Renu as P.W.2 besides marking Exs. P-1 to P-3 in

support of their claim. On the side of the Insurance Company, 2nd respondent

therein, their Officers were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2 and they also marked

Exs. R-1 to R-13 in support of their defence. The Tribunal on appreciation

of evidence, both oral and documentary, after holding that the accident was

caused due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry in question, passed an

award for Rs.51,000/- and directed the first respondent therein/appellant

herein, owner of the vehicle to pay the said amount. Questioning the said

award, the appellant/ owner has preferred the present appeal.

2. Heard Mr. T.M. Venkataraman, learned counsel for the appellant-owner of

the lorry and Mrs. Radhika Krishnan, learned counsel for the contesting 7th

respondent United India Insurance company.

3. Even at the foremost, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits

that the Tribunal, instead of passing an award against the Insurance company,

directed the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation. In such a

circumstance, there is no need to refer the factual details relating to

negligence and quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal.

4. It is seen that on 24-12-94 while the deceased Thoppai Konar was

travelling in the lorry bearing registration No. KA 03 3 614 along with 31

paddy bags, it met with an accident, thereby the he fell down and sustained

fatal injuries. His wife and children are the claimants. It is also their

case that since the lorry, which belongs to the appellant herein, was insured

with the 7th respondent Insurance company, both are liable to pay

compensation. There is no dispute that the lorry bearing registration No.KA

03 3514 was insured with the 7th respondent herein. The Insurance Company

examined their Officers as R.Ws.1 and 2 through whom, besides permit and other

documents relating to the lorry, copy of the policy has been marked as

Ex.B-12, and tariff details in respect of extra benefits as Ex.B-11. A

perusal of the details, particularly Exs. B-11 and B-12 coupled with the oral

evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 would clearly show that except third party insurance

and premium for driver and cleaner, no additional premium was paid for others.

In other words, according to Ex. B-12, no additional payment of premium was

paid for non-fair passenger. Though an amount of Rs.30/- was paid, as shown

in clause 17 of the policy, as properly explained and rightly accepted by the

Tribunal, the said amount relates to the driver and cleaner of the lorry and

not to non-fair passengers. Admittedly, the accident had occurred on 24-2-94.

There is no dispute that on the relevant date, there was no