NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these civil miscellaneous appeals, the appellant insurance company has taken up the plea that as per the terms of the policy the insurance company is statutorily bound to pay compensation only to the number of persons for whom there is a risk coverage and that the Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability on the insurance company to pay compensation in respect of all the claimants. As the question of law and facts involved in these appeals are common, they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) Facts leading to the appeals are as follows: On 21.10.1997, 17 persons travelled in a lorry bearing registration No. TCQ 8479, owned by the respondent No. 2 and insured with the appellant insurance company. Due to rash and negligent driving of its driver, the vehicle capsized. As a result, 15 persons sustained injuries, out of which, 13 died. Legal representatives of the deceased and the injured filed separate claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Court, Karur. As the averments of the claimants, evidence to be let in and the defence were common, all the claim petitions were heard and disposed of by a common award. Even before the Tribunal, the dispute was only with regard to the liability of insurance company to pay compensation. Though the appellant insurance company examined its administrative officer and contended that as per policy, Exh. R1, issued in favour of the owner of the lorry, the insurance company was statutorily liable to compensate only for six coolies, as the vehicle was insured as a transport vehicle, the Tribunal had fastened the liability on the insurance company to pay compensation for all the claimants. Policy, Exh. R1, issued by the insurance company covers the risk of the following persons, namely, two drivers, one cleaner, six coolies and one non-fare paying passenger. Aggrieved by the awards, the insurance company has filed appeals in respect of each claim.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Bhaskara Pandian, learned counsel appearing for appellant insurance company submitted that the Tribunal had failed to consider that policy, Exh. R1, covers only the liability in respect of passengers by lift or without payment of hire or reward and other risk in order to make the appellant insurance company liable to pay higher award.