NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. SEENATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third respondent insurance company in O.P.(MV) Nos.306, 336 and 337 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad is the appellant in these cases. These three claim petitions were filed by the legal heirs of the deceased who were travelling in a car, seeking compensation for the death of their bread - winner in the accident occurred on 4.1.1997. O.P.(MV) No.306 of 1997 was filed by the legal heirs of Iqbal, the driver of the car in which the other two deceased persons, viz. Murukesan and Baputty were travelling, in respect of whose death the respective legal heirs have filed O.P.(MV) Nos.336 and 337 of 1997. In all these cases the claimants filed the applications under section 163 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act'). But the allegations in the claim petitions were made as though they were filed under section 166 of the Act claiming compensation under other heads other than the amount awardable under the second schedule to section 163A of the Act as well. The common allegation in all these cases was that the deceased Iqbal was driving the car from Coimbatore to Palakkad side on 4.1.1997 at about 5 a.m. and deceased Murukesan and Baputty were travelling in the car as passengers and when it reached the place of occurrence, the lorry with No.TN -33 D/0369 driven by the first respondent, owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent came from the opposite direction in a negligent manner and hit against the car. The claimants in O.P.(MV) No.306 of 1997 claimed that the deceased was a driver -cum -loading mazdoor aged 35 and getting a monthly income of Rs.4,000/ - at the time of accident and they claimed a total compensation of Rs.4,62,200/ - on various heads. The claimants in O.P.(MV) No.336 of 1997 who are the legal heirs of deceased Murukesan claimed that the deceased was aged 22 years and engaged in seasonal business of his own and getting a monthly income of Rs.5,000/ -. They claimed a total compensation of Rs.5,16,900/ - on various heads. The claimants in O.P.(MV)No.337 of 1997 who are the legal heirs of Baputty claimed that the deceased was aged 34 years, driver by profession and getting a sum of Rs.4,000/ - per month. They claimed a total compensation of Rs.4,64,700/ - on various heads. According to them, the first respondent was responsible for the accident and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the car and respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

(2.) Respondents 1 and 2 in all these cases entered appearance and submitted written statement admitting that the first respondent was the driver and second respondent was the owner of the lorry but they denied the negligence on the part of the first respondent and attributed negligence on the part of the driver of the car in which all the deceased persons were travelling, either as driver or passenger. They also contended that the car was driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit on the rear side of the lorry which was parked near Chavady Forest check post. It was also alleged that the vehicle was carrying sandalwood in an illegal manner after manipulating the vehicle number with false number plate. Police have registered a case under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Forest Act against the deceased persons. The lorry was insured with the third respondent and if at all any compensation is payable, the third respondent is liable to pay the amount.

(3.) The third respondent filed a written statement in all these cases admitting the insurance of the lorry and they have reiterated the contentions raised by respondents 1 and 2 regarding the manner in which the accident occurred. They have further stated that the deceased persons were chargesheeted under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Forest Act and Sandalwood Transit Act. The owner, driver and the insurance company of the car were also necessary parties to the proceedings. Since there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and the accident had not occurred as stated in the claim petitions, the claim petitions are not maintainable under section 163 -A of the Act. They prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions.