LAKSHMI AND ORS. Vs. SUBBIAH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants / claimants and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent / Insurance Company.

(2.) It is a case of fatal. The manner of the accident is not in dispute. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- as compensation. This appeal has been filed by the appellants / claimants questioning the liability fixed on the first respondent / owner of the vehicle and seeking to enhance the quantum of compensation.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellants / claimants would submit that the deceased had travelled in the vehicle owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent as cleaner and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent, the said vehicle capsized, due to which the deceased and one Periyasamy died on the spot and few others, who travelled as coolie sustained injuries. But, the Tribunal, holding that in Ex.P1 - FIR, it has not been stated that the deceased had travelled in the vehicle as cleaner, has erroneously fixed the entire liability on the first respondent / owner of the vehicle alone and exonerated the second respondent from vicarious liability. As the deceased had travelled in the vehicle only as cleaner, the Tribunal ought to have directed the second respondent to pay and recover the award amount from the first respondent.