ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SANTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the 4th Respondent/Oriental Insurance Company, challenging 50% of the award directed to be paid by the 4th respondent by the Tribunal as per the award dated 03.11.2016 in MCOP.No.51 of 2013. The respondents 1 to 5 in this appeal are the claimants before the claims Tribunal who filed the above MCOP.No.51 of 2013 claiming compensation for the death of one Marimuthu in the Motor Accident occurred on 25.08.2009 under the mode of head-on-collusion. The respondents 1 and 2 before the Tribunal are the respondents 6 and 7 in this appeal. The 6th respondent is the owner of the Tractor bearing Registration No. TN-32-0807 and the 7th respondent in this appeal is the driver of the 6th respondent at the relevant point of time and it is an admitted fact that the 6th respondent during the relevant point of time has not validly insured his Tractor and therefore, the Tribunal has directed that the 6th respondent being the owner of the Tractor having come to the conclusion that the driver of the Tractor has contributed 50% negligence to the accident has directed the 6th respondent to pay 50% of the compensation and the Tribunal also directed the appellant/4th respondent being the insurer of the Jeep TCD 8448 owned by the 8th respondent/3rd respondent to pay the 50% of the award as the deceased Marimuthu was being carried on in the said Jeep TCD 8448 during the relevant point of time on the premise that the deceased Marimuthu has been covered by the insurance policy taken by the 8th respondent in this appeal with this appellant Insurance Company treating the deceased Marimuthu as a third party.

(2.) There is absolutely no dispute on facts and also on the question of apportionment of liability by the claims Tribunal as the accident has admittedly occurred under the classic mode of head-on-collusion. The Tribunal has rightly apportioned the negligence and also apportioned the liability of the vehicles involved in the above accident as 50 : 50 ratio as both the vehicles are equal in size and power. There is also no dispute regarding the mode of accident. The appellant has challenged the award only on the question of law whether deceased Marimuthu who travelled/carried in the ill-fated Jeep TCD 8448 insured with this appellant could be treated as a third party? If not, could the order passed against the appellant to satisfy 50% award to the claimants is sustainable?

(3.) As a matter of fact, neither the appellants' lawyer who defended the case of this appellant before the Tribunal nor did the counsel for the petitioner could produce the polity and the policy conditions that the 8th respondent has taken for his Jeep TCD-8448 with this appellant enabling the claims Tribunal to find out whether the policy taken by the 8th respondent was a bare act policy, or a comprehensive/package policy covering the risk of the third parties and the driver, owner and all other occupants of the Jeep TCD-8448.