JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) Krishnagiri made in M.C.O.P.No.640 of 2009 dated 30.04.2012.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.04.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.640 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court) Krishnagiri. 2. The deceased is the husband of the 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 to 5 and owner of the vehicle bearing Regn.No.PY01/A.7776. The case of the claimants / respondents 1 to 5 is that on 27.06.2004 at early morning at 4.00 a.m., the deceased was travelling in the lorry bearing Regn. No.PY01/A.7776 in Hosur to Krishnagiri N.H.Road and one Pappannan was driving the said lorry, he was proceeding on the left side of the road, slowly and cautiously observing the traffic rules and sounding horn. One lorry bearing Regn.No.KA.05/D.7774 was proceeding in front of the lorry PY01/A.7776 in a rash, reckless and negligent manner and at high speed. When the Lorry with Regn.No.PY01/A.7776 was proceeding in front of Vijay Dhaba Hotel at Gurubarapalli in Krishnagiri to Hosur N.H.Road, upon checking of mobile police, the driver of the lorry, with Regn.No.KA.05/D.7774 viz., Chinnappa, had applied sudden brake to stop the said lorry without giving any signal or indication and even there is no rear brake lights in the said lorry. Since the driver of the lorry with Regn.No.PY01/A.7776 did not anticipate the said sudden brake without any indicator, the lorry bearing Regn.No.PY01/A.7776 hit behind the lorry Regn.No.KA.05/D.7774. Due to the said impact, the deceased, viz., Ikbal, who was travelling in the lorry with Regn.No.PY01/A.7776, as owner-cum-driver sustained fatal injuries and died on spot and there was a huge damage in the said lorry. The deceased is the sole bread winner of the family and due to his demise, his family members were put in dark. Hence they have approached the Tribunal by claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,0000/- as compensation from the appellant and the 6th respondent, who are insurer and owner of the lorry respectively bearing Regn.No.KA-05-D-7774. 3. The deceased is the sole bread winner of the family and due to his demise, his family members were put in dark. Hence they have approached the Tribunal by claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,0000/- as compensation from the appellant and the 6th respondent, who are insurer and owner of the lorry respectively bearing Regn.No.KA-05-D-7774. 3. Per contra, the appellant / Insurance company denied all the averments / pleadings of the claimants and stated that in the FIR, the person, who had given statement before the police has not mentioned the vehicle number, viz., KA-05-D-7774 has caused the accident. Further, one Kadar, who is the cleaner in the vehicle PY-01-A-7776 has given a report stating that the accident has occurred due to the negligence act of the driver of the vehicle, viz., PY-01-A-7776, but not against the other lorry and based on which, the FIR was registered. 4. Apart from the above, it is also the case of the appellant / Insurance Company that the deceased being owner of the lorry bearing Regn. No.PY-01-A-7776, if he had died in an accident when he travelled in his own vehicle, then, the legal heirs of the said lorry owner should not claim any compensation with their vehicle’s insurance company. Hence to get an unlawful gain, the claimants have foisted a false case against the 6th respondent’s vehicle, however, the said respondent is not in any way connected with the accident. 5. Though notice was ordered and served on the 6th respondent, there is no representation for him either-in-person or through learned counsel and the 6th respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal also. 6. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court), Krishnagiri, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, allowed the petition in favour of the respondents 1 to 5 / claimants and awarded Rs.10,93,000/- as compensation, as follows and directed the appellant / Insurance Company and the 6th respondent / owner of the vehicle to jointly and severally pay the compensation within six months with 6% interest from date of petition till the date of realisation. S.No. Description Amount 1. For Loss of dependency 10,08,000/- 2. For Loss of Consortium 20,000/- 3. For Loss of Love and Affection 60,000/- 4. For Funeral Expenses 5,000/- Total 10,93,000/- 7. S.No. Description Amount 1. For Loss of dependency 10,08,000/- 2. For Loss of Consortium 20,000/- 3. For Loss of Love and Affection 60,000/- 4. For Funeral Expenses 5,000/- Total 10,93,000/- 7. Challenging the liability, the appellant / Insurance company has filed the present appeal before this Court stating that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in fastening the liability on them and the Tribunal has failed to consider the evidence of R.W.1, Chandrasekaran, Inspector of National Insurance Company Ltd., wherein he had stated that the lorry bearing regn.No.PY-01-A-7776 was insured only for 3rd party coverage, since neither the owner of the vehicle nor own damage covered by policy and no claim form submitted for compensation before fastening the liability against the appellant. 8. It is also contended on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal considering the evidence of R.W.2, viz., Shoba Devi, Sub-Inspector of Police, who by marking the rough sketch, Ex.R2, and final report, Ex.R.3 stated that the case was closed as RCS has fastened the liability on the appellant, but during cross examination, the Sub-Inspector of Police admitted that as per case diary, no document implicating the involvement of vehicle KA-05-D-7774 available and the case was closed on the ground that the vehicle could not be found, hence the Tribunal ought to have held that the entire case was falsely fabricated. 9. It is represented on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal considering the circumstances that the observation mahazar and seizure mahazar alleged to have been prepared on 27.06.2004, both the Exs.P.14 and P.15 were not having the seal and signature of judicial Magistrate to whom it was sent, ought not to have accepted. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the final report, it was clearly mentioned that till 20.11.2006, the vehicle which was involved in the accident, its driver and owner could not be traced, all efforts went in vain and further, investigation will be useless, hence the case was closed as undetected and RCS submitted to the learned Judicial Magistrate will establish that the seizure of number plate and observation mahazar on the date of accident, viz., 27.06.2004 itself is false and the vehicle was falsely implicated with the collusion of the owner of the vehicle, who even after notice not submitted the claim form. 11. 11. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 / claimants submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is a just and reasonable compensation, hence the same needs no interference in the hands of this Court. 12. Admittedly, the deceased is the owner of the vehicle bearing Regn.No. PY-01-A-7776 and he was travelling in the said vehicle, as a spare driver. Due to the sudden brake without indicating any signal by the preceding vehicle viz., Regn.No. KA.057774, the vehicle with Regn.No. PY-01-A-7776 had hit the said preceding vehicle and hence the vehicle with Regn. No.PY-01-A-7776 got damaged in the front side. Further, the driver, who had driven the said vehicle with Regn.No. KA.057774, had sped away with no injury. That apart, the accident had happened on 27.06.2004 and the claim petition was filed on 19.02.2009, nearly after four years. 13. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal by taking note of the cross examination of R.W.2, Mrs.Shobana Devi, Sub Inspector of Police and Ex.P.13, Observation Mahazar had held that the vehicle bearing regn. No.KA05D.774 was involved in the accident and rightly concluded that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 6th respondent. Further, the Tribunal corroborated the same with Ex.R.2 and Ex.P.14, Rough Sketch and Observation Mahazar respectively. During the cross examination, she has also admitted that as per the diary, no document implicating the involvement of the vehicle bearing Regn. No.KA-065-7774 was available and the case was closed on the ground that the vehicle could not be found. 14. As far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, since the deceased is the driver cum owner of the vehicle, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the monthly income and applied appropriate multiplicand and awarded a just and reasonable compensation, the same cannot be interfered with. Now, the dispute is only with regard to the liability fastened on the appellant. 15. As a matter of fact, R.W.1, Chandrasekaran, who is the Inspector on behalf of the appellant / Insurance Company in his evidence has stated that the vehicle bearing Regn. Now, the dispute is only with regard to the liability fastened on the appellant. 15. As a matter of fact, R.W.1, Chandrasekaran, who is the Inspector on behalf of the appellant / Insurance Company in his evidence has stated that the vehicle bearing Regn. No.PY-01-A-7776 was insured only for 3rd party coverage and hence neither the owner of the vehicle nor damage of the vehicle is covered under the said policy, but the Tribunal has failed to consider the same and wrongly fastened the liability on the Insurance company. 16. Taking into consideration of the fact that the insurance policy covers only third party coverage, therefore, the owner and the damage of the vehicle are not covered as per the terms and conditions of the policy and coupled with the fact that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence act of the driver of the 6th respondent, the said respondent is alone liable to compensate the respondents 1 to 5 / claimants and the appellant / Insurance company is exonerated from paying the compensation. 17. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, viz., Rs.10,93,000/- is hereby confirmed, as the same is just and reasonable and the 6th respondent alone shall deposit the same before Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The said compensation shall be apportioned between the respondents 1 to 5 as per the order of the Tribunal. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.