The Insurance Company is the appellant. Challenge is to the award of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.687 of 2009. The said M.C.O.P.No.687 of 2009 has been filed by the legal representatives of one Subramani, who died in the accident that took place on 14.08.2008.
2. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle, viz., TATA ACE ? load auto bearing Registration No.TN-45- AZ-1551, along with his goods, namely, rice bags. The accident occurred as a result of head on collision between the said auto and the bus belonging to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Dindigul, namely, the sixth respondent in the appeal.
3. Apart from other defences, the Insurance Company has taken a defence that since the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger and there is a violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured.
4. The learned Tribunal, upon consideration of evidence on record, concluded that there is no evidence to show that the deceased had, in fact, travelled as a gratuitous passenger. The contention of the claimants that he travelled only as the owner of the goods and not as a gratuitous passenger was accepted by the Tribunal.
5. The Tribunal also found that both the vehicles involved in the accident have contributed equally to the accident and apportioned the liability to pay the compensation equally between the owner of the load auto and the Transport Corporation at 50:50. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company is on appeal.
6. The Transport Corporation has admitted with its liability and deposited its share in the compensation before the Tribunal.
7. It is seen from the records that two persons have died as a result of the same accident. In respect of the other deceased, namely, Karthikeyan, the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.686 of 2009 was filed and the said petition was also disposed of by way of a common judgment.
8. The only contention raised on behalf of the Insurance Company is that the deceased Subramani was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and therefore, the Tribunal erred in directing the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the load auto, inasmuch as there is a violation of policy conditions.
9. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased had travelled along with his goods in the load auto in his capacity as owner of the goods and not as a gratuitous passenger.
10. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased is a gratuitous passenger. The appellant- Insurance Company has not examined any person to establish its claim that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger. In the absence of any evidence to support its plea, the Tribunal rightly held that the appellant- Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the load auto. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal.
11. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ?
Fast Track Court No.II/ Additional District Court, Trichy.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..