MARIAMMAL Vs. PROPRIETOR YAZHINI TRANSPORTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil miscellaneous appeal arises against the judgment and decree passed by the Chief Judge of Small Causes Court, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, in M.C.O.P. No. 1536 of 2001 on 11.3.2005.

(2.) The claimants are the appellants before this court. They are the legal heirs of one Kannan who met his death while being on a lorry bearing registration No. PY 01-N 6211 proceeding from Mumbai to Chennai. The driver, while on the Pune to Bangalore Highway Road, drove the same rashly and negligently resulting in the lorry dashing against a roadside tree at about 2345 hours on 3.9.2000 causing the immediate death of the deceased. The driver also sustained grievous injuries. A case was registered in Crime No. 124 of 2000 on the file of Shiggaon Police Station for offences under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code. The claimants who are the wife, two minor daughters and the mother of the deceased sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 7,00,000 informing that the deceased was 30 years old at the time of the accident, was engaged as a driver with the owner of the lorry and was earning Rs. 4,500 per month.

(3.) The respondent No. 2 insurance company in their counter before the Tribunal amongst other denials of the appellants' claim denied that deceased was employed as a co-driver and was travelling along with one A. Sekar who was the driver incharge of the vehicle at the time of accident and also required the claimants to establish that the said A. Sekar was the driver and the deceased who was the co-driver had a valid licence at the time of accident. The respondent No. 2 also took the stand that it was for the claimants to establish that the risk of the deceased was covered under policy taken out by the owner of the vehicle. Separate premium ought to have been paid since the deceased was alleged to have been the co-driver travelling at the time of accident in the goods vehicle which according to the respondent does not require to be covered under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Respondent No. 2 further contends that the insurance policy which provided cover for the lorry and only one driver must be related to the driver who had actually driven the vehicle and not to any additional or alternate driver travelling in the vehicle.