A RAJA MOHAMMAD Vs. MINNALKODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Perambalur dated 21.8.2001 made in M.C.O.P. No. 316 of 1999. The respondent No. 1 (owner of the vehicle) in the above said M.C.O.P. has filed C.M.A. No. 73 of 2002. The respondent No. 2 (insurer) in the M.C.O.P. has preferred C.M.A. No. 948 of 2002. The claimants before the Tribunal have been arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in both the appeals. The appellant in C.M.A. No. 73 of 2002 figures as the respondent No. 5 in C.M.A. No. 948 of 2002, whereas the appellant in C.M.A. No. 948 of 2002 figures as the respondent No. 5 in C.M.A. No. 73 of 2002.

(2.) Rajendran, the husband of the respondent No. 1 and also the father of minor respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in both the appeals died in an accident that occurred at about 1.30 a.m. on 13.2.1992 while he was travelling in a tractor bearing registration No. TN 45-7871 belonging to the appellant in C.M.A. No. 73 of 2002, the respondent No. 1 in M.C.O.P. No. 316 of 1999. The accident is said to have taken place near Jayankondam Pudhu Chavadi. Contending that the above said deceased Rajendran, while travelling in the said tractor along with his goods after loading his paddy bags in the tractor suffered a fatal fall from the tractor as the same was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein as dependants of the deceased made a claim before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation. The claim was made against the appellants in both the appeals, who figured as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the M.C.O.P. on the ground that the appellant in C.M.A. No. 73 of 2002 was the owner and the appellant in C.M.A. No. 948 of 2002 was the insurer on the relevant date of the above said tractor involved in the accident.

(3.) The claim was resisted by the insurer, namely, the appellant in C.M.A. No. 948 of 2002 contending that the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the owner and insurer of the trailer bearing registration No. TN 31-1022 were not made parties to the M.C.O.P. and that the said appellant (insurer) was not liable to reimburse the owner of the tractor as the trailer was not covered by the insurance policy issued by the appellant in C.M.A. No. 948 of 2002. It was also contended therein that the deceased person travelled along with 32 others in the above said trailer attached to the tractor insured with the appellant in C.M.A. No. 948 of 2002 and that hence the said appellant could not be mulcted with the liability to reimburse the owner of the tractor to the extent of the compensation he might be directed to pay to the claimants.