ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. DHANABACKIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Insurer has filed this appeal against the decision of the learned single Judge in C.M.A.No.42 of 2001. Such C.M.A., filed by the claimants was directed against the award dated 15.2.2000 in MCOP.No.289 of 1993. THE claim application was filed by the parents of the deceased.

(2.) ON 28.8.1992, the son of the claimants was travelling in a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-31-W-0149 belonging to present Respondent No. 2. Such vehicle was insured with the present appellant. The claimants, who filed the claim application, claimed Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. The owner remained ex parte. The contention of the Insurance Company was that the deceased was travelling in the lorry and was an unauthorised passenger and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal held that a sum of Rs.66,000/- was payable as compensation to the parents of the deceased. The Tribunal by relying upon the decision reported in 1999 ACJ 1 (Mallawwa (Smt) And Others V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited And Others) held that such amount was payable by the owner and the Insurance Company was not liable to pay such amount as the person was carried in a goods vehicle, which was not authorised. Thereafter, the appeal was filed by the claimants claiming higher compensation. It was also contended that the Insurance Company should pay compensation. Learned single Judge while confirming the award of the Tribunal relating to quantum payable, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 2000 SC 235 (New India Assurance Company V. Satpal Singh And Others), held that the owner as well as the Insurance Company were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.66,000/- with interest at 12% from the date of application till the date of payment. Accordingly the award of the Tribunal was modified by the learned single Judge to the above extent. Thereafter the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

(3.) IT is convenient to consider the question of liability of the Insurance Company first because the question of maintainability of the Cross Objection is dependant upon such question.