IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.1.2009 CORAM:- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.Nos. 186 and 271 of 2003 ..... CMA No. 186 of 2003:- National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, No.838, Cuddalore Main Road, Athur. .. Appellant/2nd respondent Vs. 1. Rani 2. Minor Amutha 3. Minor Chinnaraj 4. Minor Amulraj 5. Ponvendan 6. Aruldoss 7. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Pondy. (R6 & R7 are given up) .. Respondents/Claimants 1 to 4 respondents 1,3 & 4 CMA No. 271 of 2003:- The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, No.838, Cuddalore Main Road, Athur. .. Appellant/2nd respondent Vs. 1. Rani 2. Ponvendan 3. Aruldoss 4. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Pondy. .. Respondents/Claimant/ (R3 & R4 are given up) respondents 1,3 & 4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Appeals filed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act against the award and decree dated 28.08.2001 made in MCOP No. 1070 of 1997 and 144 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tindivanam. For Appellant : Mr.N. Vijayaraghavan For Respondents : No Appearance – R1 to R4 COMMON JUDGMENT These two appeals have been filed by the Insurance company challenging the common award dated 28.08.2001 made in MCOP No. 1070 of 1997 and 144 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tindivanam. 2. Respondents inspite of notice have failed to appear even at this point of time. The appeal is of the year 2003. The accident in this case happened on 24.3.1997 at about 6.30 a.m. on the Chengalpattu by-pass road near Patchaiamman Temple. The injured Rani and her husband Sivaraj were travelling with vegetables in a lorry bearing registration No. TCD 5995, insured with the appellant, from Tindivanam to Chennai. The said lorry hit another lorry which was proceeding before them due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry in which the deceased and the injured claimant were travelling. Due to the impact, the claimant Rani sustained grievous injuries and her husband Sivaraj died in that accident. On the death of Sivaraj, claim petition was filed by the wife and three minor children claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. For the injuries caused to her, Rani filed separate claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. Both the cases were taken and disposed of by a common award. 3. In support of the claim petitions, the injured claimant Rani was examined as P.W.1. Dr. Ramanujam was examined as P.W.2. Documents Exs. A1 to A5 were marked. No oral and documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the appellant/ respondent before the Tribunal in both the cases. 4. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry in which the injured claimant and the deceased husband were travelling and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not disputed. Such finding of the Tribunal is confirmed. 5. The only contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the injured claimant and her husband, who died in the accident, were travelling as gratuitous passenger. The insurance policy does not cover such a claim and the insurance company is not liable to compensate the claimants. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. As stated above, on behalf of the claimants documents Exs. A1 to A5 were marked. The accident in these cases happened in the year 1997. The appellant has not made an endeavour to mark the insurance policy which has been clearly indicated in the claim petitions so as to negative the claims on the ground that the policy does not cover the case of passengers in a goods vehicle. 7. There is a valid policy covering the vehicle involved in the accident. It has not been denied. In any event, no steps were taken by the appellant before the Tribunal to mark the document and to prove the plea with regard to 'no liability' under the policy. In such view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal has to be accepted. Only for the above said reason, both the appeals have been filed and no other point is urged and for the aforesaid reason, they are rejected. The award of the Tribunal therefore stands confirmed. 8. In the result, the two civil miscellaneous appeals are dismissed. No costs. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that entire award amount has already been deposited in both the cases. The claimants are permitted to withdraw as per the order of the Tribunal. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ra To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tindivanam. 2 ccs To Mr.R.Sivakumar, Advocate, SR.514 & 515 2 ccs cc To Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate, SR.618 & 620 CMA Nos. 186 & 271 of 2003 VSV(CO) SRA(11/02/2009) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/