JUDGMENT: These Appeal Suits are filed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 22.09.2011 passed in O.S.Nos.65, 107, 108 and 109 of 2008 respectively, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul. 2. Arulmighu Thandayuthapani Swamy Thirukovil is situated at the top of Palani Hills. Palani Devasthanam is controlling the affairs of the Temple. They have availed the services of M/s.Ropeway Resorts (P) Limited for running rope cars for the conveniences of the pilgrims to reach the top of the Hill, where the Sanctum Sanctorum is situated. On 26.08.2007 the accident had taken place due to collision of the cars in which four persons died. The dependents of the deceased persons have preferred four suits before the Fast Track Court (Additional District Judge), Dindigul, claiming compensation. The learned Additional District Judge, vide its judgment and decree dated 22.09.2011, had held that the claimants are entitled to compensation and awarded a total compensation of Rs.28,37,284/-. It was further directed that all the respondents therein shall be liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. 3. According to the Palani Devasthanam, running of rope cars is covered by the insurance policy issued by M/s.National Insurance Company Limited. The policies were in force between 05.11.2006 and 04.11.2007 and, therefore, the Insurance Company alone is liable to pay compensation and the order passed by the District Court fixing liability on them is not sustainable. Even assuming that the Insurance Company is not liable, the responsibility of maintenance is with M/s. Ropeway Resorts (P) Limited and hence, they are liable and not the Palani Devasthanam. 4. According to the Insurance Company, the accident had taken place due to the negligence of passengers and, therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation and as per policy conditions, their liability is limited to Rs. 25,00,000/- for any one accident and, therefore, the direction to pay the entire compensation is not acceptable. 5. On the above grounds, both the Palani Devasthanam as well as M/s. National Insurance Company Limited have preferred the above appeals. 6. According to Palani Devasthanam, the insurance policy covers the compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for one year. In the relevant year, no other accident had taken place. 5. On the above grounds, both the Palani Devasthanam as well as M/s. National Insurance Company Limited have preferred the above appeals. 6. According to Palani Devasthanam, the insurance policy covers the compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for one year. In the relevant year, no other accident had taken place. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.28,37,284/-, which is within the coverage of Rs.50,00,000/- for accident taken place in one year and, therefore, the Insurance Company is totally liable to pay the entire compensation with accrued interest. The order passed by the District Court directing the Devasthanam liable to pay the compensation is not legally sustainable. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for M/s.National Insurance Company Limited would contend that Clause 7 of the public policy condition issued in favour of the insured specifically limits the liability in the following ways: (a) If any one accident had taken place, the liability of Insurance Company is limited to Rs.25,00,000/- in a year. (b) More than one accident or in other words, series of accident had taken place in a year, coverage is limited upto Rs.50,00,000/- for any number of accidents. (c) The Insurance Company is liable to pay the maximum of Rs. 50,00,000/- in cases of more than one accident in a year, irrespective of number of accidents and number of claims. In the instance case, in that particular year, only one accident had taken place. In that event, the policy condition that for one accident, liability limited to Rs. 25,00,000/- will apply. Therefore, they are liable to pay only upto Rs. 25,00,000/-. 8. The learned counsel would further contend that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the passengers travelled in the rope cars and due to unwanted action of the passengers, the collision had taken place. Therefore, liability cannot be fastened on the Insurance Company. Hence, he would contend that the judgment and decree passed by the District Court fastening the liability on the Insurance Company is legally not tenable. 9. I have considered the rival submissions. 10. Admittedly, Palani Devasthanam availed the services of M/s.Ropeway Resorts (P) Limited for running the rope cars to facilitate the travel of the pilgrims to the top of the Temple. The service provider, namely M/s.Ropeway Resorts (P) Limited is responsible for the safety and maintenance of the rope cars. 9. I have considered the rival submissions. 10. Admittedly, Palani Devasthanam availed the services of M/s.Ropeway Resorts (P) Limited for running the rope cars to facilitate the travel of the pilgrims to the top of the Temple. The service provider, namely M/s.Ropeway Resorts (P) Limited is responsible for the safety and maintenance of the rope cars. Their services were covered by the Insurance policy issued by M/s.National Insurance Company Limited. The policy covers all the untoward incidents from the Boarding Station till the top of the Hill and during travel. As such, it is no doubt that the insurance policy covers any accident which happens at the bottom of the Hill during travel and at the top of the hill. It is to be noted that rope cars run in a compartment which are locked outside. Therefore, there is no possibility for the passengers to come out of the locked enclosure and to indulge in any action, which may result in any accident due to collision. In that view of the matter, I am of the firm view that the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the passengers, is not acceptable. It is also pertinent to note that the insurance policy covers the Act of God also. Therefore, the finding of the Court below that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation is absolutely legal and sustainable. 11. Coming to the next point with regard to the limited liability of the Insurance Company, for better understanding, Clause 7 of the policy reads as under: "Indemnity Limits: Company's total liability to pay compensation, claimant's costs, fees and expenses and defence costs shall not exceed the indemnity limit stated in the Schedule. Indemnity Limit for any one accident applies to any one claim or series of claims arising from one originating cause. Indemnity Limit shall represent, the total amount of Company's Liability during the Policy period. Indemnity Limit for any one accident applies to any one claim or series of claims arising from one originating cause. Indemnity Limit shall represent, the total amount of Company's Liability during the Policy period. Cover note of the policy reads as under: "Spl.No. Description Sum Insured (Rs.) Any One Accident Limit Rs.25,00,000/- Any One Year Limit Rs.50,00,000/- 50,00,000.00 Total Sum Insured (Rs.) Rs.50,00,000.00 Total Sum Insured (In Words) : Rupees Fifty Lakh only Risks Covered : Passengers of Rope Cars, Public Waiting at Rope Car Station at Both the Ends of Hill Top and Ground to travel in the Rope Car and the Temple Pass Holders Travelling in the Rope Cars. Location Palani. Special Peril Sking. (Temple Rope Car), All AOG Perils included. Subject to Clause Any One Accident Limit Rs.25,00,000/-, Any One Year Limit Rs.50,00,000/-. Special Conditions As Per Public Liability Non Industrial Policy Conditions. Retrospective Date : 05.11.2006." 12. A reading of the aforesaid policy condition makes it clear that if one accident had taken place in a year, the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs.25,00,000/-. If more than one accident takes place in a year, liability in respect of the claim of compensation for all the accidents, is limited to Rs.50,00,000/-. In that view of the matter, liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs.25,00,000/- for the one accident that had taken place. It is submitted by both sides that there is no accident happened in that year. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company to the extent that their liability is limited to Rs.25,00,000/- for that one accident has some force. In that event, they are liable to pay Rs.25,00,000/- with accrued interest towards the award passed in favour of the claimants. 13. It only remains to account for the liability of the Palani Devasthanam and rope car company to pay the balance of compensation. It is very clear that M/s.Ropeway Resorts (P) Limited is responsible for the safety and maintenance of the rope cars run by them. They are the service providers to the Palani Devasthanam. The service charges are appropriated by them. Therefore, it is their look-out to maintain the rope cars in fit and proper condition. Anything happened due to the negligence of the rope car company, they are liable to pay the compensation. 14. They are the service providers to the Palani Devasthanam. The service charges are appropriated by them. Therefore, it is their look-out to maintain the rope cars in fit and proper condition. Anything happened due to the negligence of the rope car company, they are liable to pay the compensation. 14. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Palani Devasthanam that the Devasthanam is collecting the charges for travel and remitting it to rope car company after deducting a particular percentage towards the service rendered by them. In that view of the matter, it is very clear that M/s.Ropeway Resorts (P) Limited is liable to pay the compensation over and above the liability of the Insurance Company. Admittedly, the award of compensation is Rs.28,37,284/-, in which, the Insurance Company is liable to pay Rs.25,00,000/-. The balance amount is Rs.3,37,284/- which is payable by M/s.Ropeway Resorts (P) Limited with accrued interest at 9% p.a.,. Palani Devasthanam is not liable to pay any compensation. However, the Palani Devasthanam are collecting and remitting the money to M/s.Ropeway Resorts (P) Limited. If that is so, the temple can pay the compensation and recover the same from the Rope Car company, which provides service to the temple. 15. The Tribunal has apportioned the compensation and the Insurance Company has remitted the appropriate amount to the respective suit account on 02.07.2012. Therefore, what remains is the payment of interest. Insofar as the Insurance Company is concerned, payment of interest is due for the period upto 02.07.2012, from the date of petition. The balance of compensation of Rs.3,37,284/- shall be paid by the temple and recovered from the Rope car company. The Insurance Company is directed to make the payment of interest, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the temple would submit that due to the Covid-19 Pandemic situation, the temple is closed and that the Rope car is not running and, therefore, they would require atleast three months time for depositing that amount and accordingly, three months time is granted from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment for depositing the balance amount of compensation along with accrued interest at 9% p.a. 17. The Appeal Suits are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.