NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. CHENNAIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The insurance company which figured as the respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal has brought forth this appeal against the judgment and award dated 15.11.2000 made by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Second Additional District Judge), Erode in M.C.O.P. No. 448 of 1997.

(2.) The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein were the petitioners in M.C.O.P. No. 448 of 1997 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), Erode. The respondent Nos. 7 and 8 herein and the appellant herein were respectively the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the above said M.C.O.P. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein had filed the said M.C.O.P. claiming a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 as compensation from the appellant and the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 herein together with future interest and cost for the death of one Raman (husband of the respondent No. 1 and father of the respondent Nos. 2 to 6). The claim was made based on the allegation that, on 23.2.1997, while the deceased Raman was travelling in a Tempo van belonging to the respondent No. 8 herein (respondent No. 2 in the M.C.O.P.) and bearing registration No. TN 38-A 9159, the same was driven by respondent No. 7 herein (respondent No. 1 in the M.C.O.P.) in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, at about 9 p.m. on the said date the said vehicle capsized and turned turtle near the then Jeeva Transport Corporation shed on Perundurai-Seenapuram Road. Contending that rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver was the sole cause of accident and that the same led to the death of deceased Raman on 26.2.1997 after having been treated as an inpatient in TAT Medical College & Hospital, Perun- durai, the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein had made the above said claim against the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 herein and the appellant herein as respectively the driver, owner and the insurer of the said vehicle involved in the accident.

(3.) The driver and owner of the vehicle, namely, the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 herein (respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the M.C.O.P.) did not contest the case and chose to remain ex parte. The appellant insurance company which figured as the respondent No. 3 in the M.C.O.P. alone contested the case by filing a counter statement denying the petition averments and contending that appellant insurance company was not liable to pay any amount as compensation to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein (petitioner Nos. 1 and 2) since the goods vehicle had been used for carrying passengers in violation of the permit and policy conditions.