JUDGMENT :- 1. The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / Vengatesh against the award and decree dated 25.08.2006 made in M.C.O.P.No.872 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub-Judge, Tiruvannamalai. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows: On 29.01.2002 at around 3.15 p.m., the petitioner's vehicle bearing Registration No.TN25-C-8965 was loaded with groundnuts and was proceedings from Rajakottai towards Thiruvannamalai. The driver of the mini-lorry had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, as a result, the lorry capsized and the load-men who were travelling in the lorry including the petitioner had sustained injuries. Hence, the petitioner had filed the claim petition for damage to the vehicle a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest. 3. The Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition stating that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation on the ground of own damage because of willful violation of the breach of policy conditions, which resulted in the accident. As per the vehicle permit, the vehicle can be loaded with 2910 Kgs, but as per the registered laden weight is 6950 Kgs, but the groundnuts alone 3400 Kgs, as such the driver of the vehicle lost control, hence the accident had occurred. The accident was only due to the overloading which amounts to violation of policy conditions. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 4. On the side of the claimant two witnesses had been examined and nine documents were marked. On the side of the respondent one witness was examined and five documents were marked. 5. On considering the evidence of the witnesses, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. 6. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the claimant has filed the above appeal for compensation for damage to the vehicle. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant / claimant argued that the vehicle damages are covered by the Insurance Policy, as such the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim, but the Tribunal had summarily rejected the claim petition. The learned counsel further submitted that in order to prove the damage, the claimant had marked repair bills as Ex.P3. In order to prove the paid amount and damage, the claimant had marked Ex.P4-damage bills and photo copy of the damaged vehicle. 8. The learned counsel further submitted that in order to prove the damage, the claimant had marked repair bills as Ex.P3. In order to prove the paid amount and damage, the claimant had marked Ex.P4-damage bills and photo copy of the damaged vehicle. 8. Learned counsel for the Assurance Company vehemently argued that the mini-lorry was overloaded over 3000 Kgs, but as per the vehicle permit is 2910 Kgs, as such the policy condition is violated. The same was informed to the claimant on 09.06.2003, again the same relief cannot be maintained before any forum in the absence of legal provision. 9. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Insurance Policy was in force from 01.10.2002 to 30.09.2003, so at the time of accident, the Insurance Policy was in force. Due to overloading, the entire damage cannot be fashioned on the private individual, so the Insurance Company being the insurer of the vehicle shall share the damage of the vehicle to the extent of 50%. Therefore, this Court directs the New India Assurance Company Limited to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- alone. This amount will not carry any interest. Hence, the Court directs the India Assurance Company limited to deposit the said amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.872 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub-Judge, Tiruvannamalai within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. After such deposit being made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the said compensation amount lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.872 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Judge, Tiruvannamalai, after filing a Memo along with this order. 10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the file of Additional Sub-Judge, Tiruvannamalai made in M.C.O.P.No.872 of 2003, dated 25.08.2006 is modified. There is no order as to costs.