YUVARAJ SPARKLES FACTORY Vs. P PANDIAMMAL (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant / owner of the vehicle involved in the accident questioning the liability fixed on it in the payment of compensation amount.

(2.) It is a case of fatal. According to the claimants, on 19.08.1998 the deceased Pambai Ambalam @ Pambaiyan travelled in the appellant's van bearing registration No.TN-57-9765 as workman for unloading the sparkles bundle in and around Tenkasi to Shenkottai areas along with other workers namely Ganesan, Sekar and Bose. While so, on 20.08.1998 at 3.15 hours, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant, the vehicle overturned and capsized, due to which the deceased sustained fatal injuries and subsequently, succumbed to the injuries. On the side of the claimants, the first claimant was examined as PW1 and one eyewitness was examined as PW2 and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. The first claimant PW1 died during the pendency of the claim petition and therefore, the second claimant, who is the legal heir of the first claimant, has become the sole claimant. On the side of the appellant and the Insurance Company, the Manager of the appellant's Company was examined as RW1 and an Officer of the Insurance Company was examined as RW2 and Exs.P1 and P2 were marked. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,37,000/- as total compensation with simple interest at 9% per annum and dismissed the claim petition in respect of the Insurance Company and fixed entire liability on the appellant to pay the entire award amount. Questioning the liability, the appellant is before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that in the FIR, it is mentioned that at the time of the accident, 14 persons have travelled in the vehicle from Madurai to Courtallam for taking bath and only based on the same, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition and directed the appellant to pay the entire compensation amount. The said complaint was given by RW1, who was one of the employees of the appellant. But, RW1 has specifically stated in this evidence that he has signed in the complaint without reading the contents of the same and that at the time of the accident, the deceased had travelled only as worker in the vehicle along with three others and the deceased alone sustained grievous injuries and subsequently, succumbed to the injuries. As per the Policy, 6 persons, including the driver, are entitled to travel in the vehicle and as the appellant had paid additional fee for non fare paying passenger, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the entire compensation on vicarious liability. But, the Tribunal has erroneously exonerated the Insurance Company from the payment of compensation amount. Thus, he prayed to fix the entire liability on the Insurance Company and to direct the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount.