NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. V VELAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these three appeals arise out of a common order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ariyalur, in M.C.O.P. Nos. 406, 407, and 413 of 1991. They are filed by the Insurance Company regarding an accident which took place on 24-8-1988 at about 3.00 p.m. on Tiruchy - Madras Highway near Eraiyur village. A mini lorry - Goods vehicle bearing registration No. TNP 4041 was being driven by its driver Balasubramanian, carrying the household articles belonging to one Vellaichamy, Forester. The said Vellaichamy and his wife were also travelling in the vehicle. The lorry skidded from the road and fell into a river after breaking the parapet wall of the bridge, resulting in the death of the driver Balasubramaniam and Vellaichamy. Velammal wife of Vellaichamy sustained injuries. While M.C.O.P. No. 413 of 1991 was filed by the legal representatives of the driver, O.P. No. 406 of 1991 was filed by the legal representatives of Vellaichamy and M.C.O.P. No. 407 of 1991 was filed by Velammal. It is not necessary to deal with the facts relating to the accident and the negligence having regard to the scope of the appeal. The Tribunal after finding that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the driver, awarded specific amount of compensation in each case and held that both the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle were jointly and severally liable for the compensation. In these appeals, the Insurance Company is questioning its liability to pay damages in respect of persons who were travelling in a goods vehicle without any authorisation by the owner of the vehicle and also the claim by the legal representatives of the driver who was himself found negligent in driving the vehicle. According to learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the claim was not permissible either under the policy or in terms of Section 95(1) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The terms of the policy specifically prohibits unauthorised persons or the owner of the goods to travel in a goods vehicle. According to the provisions of the Act as well as the policy, unless there was a special coverage and additional premium is paid by the owner of the vehicle to cover the liability in respect of passengers in goods vehicle or the owner of the goods to travel along with his goods and in the absence of any special contract with the owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company was not liable. The main reason why the objection of the Insurance Company was rejected by the Tribunal was that the original policy was not produced. But only an office copy of the policy was filed by the Insurance Company.

(2.) Mr. R. Vedantham learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company submits as follows :-(a) Office copy of the Insurance Company Policy was as good as the original policy. It was equally the responsibility of the owner to have produced the original. It is further stated that even at the level of the Supreme Court, xerox copies of documents have been permitted to be filed.(b) The policy clearly prohibits the use of the vehicle for conveyance of the passenger for hire or reward under Section 95(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and also does not enable a passenger in a goods carriage whether as an hirer or otherwise to fasten any liability on the Insurance Company.(c) Negligence on the part of the driver would completely absolve the liability of the Insurance Company and in the present case, as regards the claims by the legal representatives of the driver of the Tribunal ought to have held that the Insurance Company was not liable for the compensation.(d) Assuming that the claimants were entitled to any award under Workmen's Compensation Act, no interest is payable.

(3.) All the aforementioned contentions are denied and countered by learned counsel appearing for the respective claimants.