JUDGMENT : V.M. VELUMANI, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Award made in MCOP No. 199 of 2007, dated 07.09.2010, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. 2. The appellant/Insurance Company is the second respondent in MCOP No. 199 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. The first respondent, who is the claimant, has filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. 3. According to the first respondent, the driver of the Lorry belonging to the second respondent insured with the appellant was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Lorry belonging to the first respondent, as a result of which, one of the load man, who travelled in second respondent Lorry, died. The other load men travelled in the Lorry of the first respondent sustained injuries. The lorry of the first respondent heavily damaged and the same was tracked to workshop. The driver of the second respondent was responsible for accident. The appellant as insurer of the Lorry and the second respondent as owner of the Lorry are liable to pay compensation to repair the lorry. The claim petition is filed against the second respondent claiming a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. 4. The appellant filed statement of objection and denied the manner in which the accident took place as alleged by the first respondent. The first respondent suppressed the fact that his Lorry was insured with New India Assurance Company Limited and whether any claim was made with the said Insurance Company and the result of such claim. The first respondent has to prove the ownership of the vehicle and his right to file claim petition on behalf of the owner of the vehicle. The claim petition is filed in individual capacity. The damages as stated by the first respondent are very vague. The claim is not clear whether it is based on the estimate given by the repairer or actual expenses incurred for expenditure. The first respondent has received compensation for own damages from the insurer of the Lorry and have not suffered any loss. 5. The Tribunal took up the claim petition filed by the injured persons and the present claim petition together and considering the evidence let in passed a common Award. The first respondent has received compensation for own damages from the insurer of the Lorry and have not suffered any loss. 5. The Tribunal took up the claim petition filed by the injured persons and the present claim petition together and considering the evidence let in passed a common Award. The Tribunal held that the driver of the Lorry belonging to the second respondent is responsible for the accident and considering the claim of injured, awarded various amounts on the facts of each case. As far as the present case is concerned, the Tribunal considering the evidence of the first respondent and the documents, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,56,278/- as compensation for the damages caused to the Lorry belonging to the first respondent. 6. Against the said Award, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the first respondent has not proved that he has been authorised to file claim petition. He has not produced any document to show his authority at the time of filing claim petition or even at the time of trial, even though the appellant has taken specific objection that first respondent is not an authority to file claim petition. As far as the damages are concerned, the first respondent has claimed compensation for own damages from the Insurance Company and received the amount. The first respondent did not inform about the damages of the Lorry to the appellant and did not allow the officials to inspect the Lorry to ascertain the damages. The documents produced and marked for purchase of spare parts do not relate to PR Granites. The letter written by Insurer New India Assurance Company Limited marked as Ex.P23 is addressed to PR Traders and not to PR Granites. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that the first respondent produced documents to show the nature of damages and expenses required for repairing the same. The insurer of the Lorry has given a letter that no claim was made for own damages. The Tribunal has considered these facts and granted compensation for damages of the Lorry. 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the first respondent and perused the materials available on record. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has considerable force and acceptable. The Tribunal has considered these facts and granted compensation for damages of the Lorry. 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the first respondent and perused the materials available on record. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has considerable force and acceptable. The claim petition is filed by one Prabhakaran claiming to be Manager of PR Granites and he has stated that he has signed in the claim petition in his individual capacity without seal of the company. Even after the appellant has taken objection that said Prabhakaran has no authority to represent the owner of the Lorry and the said Prabhakaran has not produced any document to show that he was authorised to represent the owner of the Lorry in the claim petition. Ex.P23, Letter from New India Assurance Company Limited is addressed to PR Traders and not to PR Granites. The said letter states that no claim was made for own damages. Whereas the said Prbahakaran examined on behalf of the first respondent, has stated that the claim for own damages was made with the Insurance Company and the Officials inspected the vehicle, but he does not know as to why the amount was not paid. This vital contradiction was not considered by the Tribunal. 11. Further, the documents Ex.P24 and P25 produced and marked by the first respondent to show the purchase of spare parts does not relate to PR Granites, but relate to other companies of PR Group. The Tribunal has failed to see that the no document was produced with regard to PR Granites and the said Prabhakaran, who signed in the claim petition, has not proved that he is authorised to file claim petition on behalf of the owner. In view of the above, the Award dated 07.09.2010, is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. 12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by setting the Award made in MCOP No. 199 of 2007, dated 07.09.2010, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.