JUDGMENT V.M. Velumani, J. The appellant is claimant in M.C.O.P.No.199 of 2001. She filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs. 91,472/- as compensation for the damages to the lorry belonging to her. 2. According to the appellant, on 09.05.1999, at 10.15 a.m, when the driver of the lorry has taken the lorry to load sand from Kulakudi Tank, he saw number of persons standing near the tank. He applied sudden brake and due to that, the lorry capsized and damaged. The lorry was insured with the respondent and hence, the respondent is liable to pay compensation. 3. The respondent filed a counter statement and contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry. At the time of accident, 75 persons travelled in the lorry in violation of permit and policy conditions. As per the policy, the respondent is liable to pay compensation only for the damages caused to the property of third party and not liable to pay compensation to the damages caused to the vehicle of insured. 4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, considering the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition. As against the said order of dismissal, the appellant/claimant has filed the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the vehicle was insured with the respondent and the accident did not occur due to the violation of policy conditions. The Tribunal ought to have seen that the accident occurred only due to the mechanical defect of the vehicle and not because of carrying 75 persons, at the time of accident. The appellant has proved the nature of defect in the lorry belonging to the appellant which caused the accident through evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P.5-Report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the accident did not occur due to the mechanical defect, but only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the appellant. Ex.P.1-First Information Report was lodged only against the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal has appreciated the entire facts and evidence in proper perspective and dismissed the claim petition and there is no reason to interfere with the said order. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondent and perused the materials on record carefully. 8. Ex.P.1-First Information Report was lodged only against the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal has appreciated the entire facts and evidence in proper perspective and dismissed the claim petition and there is no reason to interfere with the said order. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondent and perused the materials on record carefully. 8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the appellant has claimed a sum of Rs. 91,472/- as compensation for the damages caused to the lorry, insured with the respondent. According to the appellant, the accident occurred due to the mechanical defect. The appellant has filed Ex.P.5-Report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector. But, the appellant did not examine the said Motor Vehicle Inspector to prove Ex.P.5. Further, Ex.P.1-First Information Report has been filed only against the driver of the lorry. The appellant has not examined the driver of the lorry to prove that the accident occurred only due to the mechanical defect and not due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry. In addition to the same, the appellant has not informed the respondent about the damages caused to the lorry and no opportunity was given to the respondent to inspect the lorry to assess the damages. Only on 26.04.2000, after almost 1 year of the accident, the appellant has issued notice through her Advocate to the respondent and the respondent has sent reply dated 16.05.2000. The Tribunal has considered all the above facts and held that the appellant is not entitled to claim compensation for the damages to the lorry and has given valid reason for arriving at the said conclusion. 9. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the said conclusion of the Tribunal. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, by confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2007, made in M.C.O.P.No.199 of 2001, on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Pudukkottai. No costs.