(1.) The appellants/claimants have filed the present civil miscellaneous appeals, challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P. Nos. 169 and 170 of 2006 dated 31.12.2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Theni.
(2.) It is a case of injury caused due to the accident that took place on 19.09.2004 at about 04.00 p.m in front of Ramesh Garden near Sathya Nagar, Sothuparai Road. The injured/victims, filed claim petitions seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Theni. The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case awarded a sum of Rs.35,000.00 in M.C.O.P. No.169 of 2006 as total compensation and a sum of Rs. 99,000.00 in M.C.O.P. No.99,000.00 as total compensation, with interest at 7.5% p.a, against which, the appellants/claimants have preferred the present appeals challenging the quantum of compensation.
(3.) The learned counsel for the third respondent Insurance Company has submitted that the injured/victims were travelling on the top of the Tractor and therefore, they are not covered under the insurance policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation in view of the principles laid down by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Vedwati and Others reported in 2007 (1) TN MAC 205 (SC), where in paragraph 8 to 13, it has been as under : In New India Assurance Company Vs. Satpal Singh's case (supra) this Court proceeded on the footing that provisions of Sec. 95(1)of the old Act are in pari materia with Sec. 147(1) of the Act as it stood prior to the amendment in 1994. On a closer reading of the expressions "goods vehicle". "public service vehicle", "state carrier" and "transport vehicle" occurring in Sections 2(8), 2(25), 2(29) and 2(33) of the old Act with the corresponding provisions i.e. Sec. 2(14), 2(35) 2(40) and 2(47) of the Act, it is clear that there are conceptual differences. The provisions read as follows: Old Act :