USHA NANDHINI Vs. AMBIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to fix the entire liability on 4th respondents made in order dtd. 13/8/2024 made in M.C.O.P.No.1066 of 2021 on the file of the MACT Tribunal,Special District Court, Krishnagiri(in short ''tribunal''). Challenging the award passed by the tribunal owner of the vehicle filed this appeal.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erroneously fixed entire liability upon the appellant/owner of the vehicle stating that there was a gross violation of the policy condition though the vehicle was insured at the time of the accident. Further, he submits that the tribunal has failed to consider the fact that at the time of the accident, only three persons were travelling in the lorry to substantiate the same the appellant examined the driver of the lorry as RW1, who testified that only three persons were travelling in the lorry. But, the tribunal has erroneously concluded that five persons were travelling in the lorry at the time of the accident and the appellant is solely liable for the compensation. Further, he submits that appellant paid premium for workmen also, therefore the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. However, the tribunal fixed entire liability on the appellant which is erroneous. Further, the respondent has not examined any independent witness to substantiate the claim that five persons were travelling in the lorry. Further, the tribunal has erroneously held that the driver of the lorry did not possessed valid driving license to operate a vehicle with gross weight of 11,900 kgs, but as per the Judgement reported in 2024(2) TNMAC 561(SC), it was held that a driver holding LMV license with GVW of less than 7500 kg is authorised to operate a transport vehicle without requiring additional authorisation under Sec. 10(2)(e). Hence, he prays to fix entire liability upon the fourth respondent/Insurance company.

(3.) The learned counsel for the fourth respondent/Insurance Company submits that at the time of the accident the driver of the lorry possessed driving licence only for Light Motor Vehicle and not for heavy vehicles. Furthermore, the vehicle was overloaded with five persons including the driver. As per the policy three persons were covered. Besides, the deceased was sit on body of the lorry thereby he violated the policy conditions which was rightly appreciated by the tribunal needs no interference. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.