Full Judgment
(Prayer:-Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the fair and decreetal order in MCOP.No.16 of 2007, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, dated 11.04.2008.)
The appellant has filed the present C.M.A(MD)No.937 of 2008, challenging the award passed in MCOP.No.16 of 2007, dated 11.04.2008, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram.
2. It is a case of an injury caused in an accident took place on 13.11.2006 at about 09.00 hours near Pamban Panchayat Office on the Madurai-Rameswaram National Highways. The injured victim has filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, in MCOP.No.16 of 2007. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded Rs.61,000/- as total compensation. The liability was fixed only against the owner of the vehicle. Challenging the same, the appellant/claimant has preferred the present appeal on the ground that the Tribunal has committed an error on fixing the liability only on the owner of the vehicle instead fixing of the liability on the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the injured/claimant was travelling in her capacity as the owner of the goods and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the liability on the Insurance company.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent opposed the appeal by stating that it is not pleaded in the petition by the claimant that she was travelling as a owner of the goods nor she has proved the same before the Tribunal. Further in the ground, the appellant has stated that she travelled in her capacity as a care taker of the goods. There are inconsistencies even about the capacity of the traveler, who is none other than the appellant/claimant. In view of the inconsistencies raised by the appellant/claimant, there is a doubt in the claim and therefore, the Tribunal is right in fixing the liability on the owner of the vehicle. This apart, the Tribunal in its findings categorically found that it is a case of a violation of policy condition, since the unauthorized passengers were allowed to travel in the vehicle. Further, the appellant/claimant also not proved that she was travelling either as a care taker of the goods or as a owner of the goods. Such being the clear findings of the Tribunal, this Court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, in MCOP.No.16 of 2007, dated 11.04.2008, is in order and accordingly the same is confirmed. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
5. The second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already deposited. The appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with accrued interest through RTGS, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal. No costs.