- (1.) The claimants in five motor accident claim cases are the appellants in these appeals by special leave. The owner-cum-driver (third respondent) did not contest the proceedings before the Tribunal. Only the insurer (first respondent) contested the proceedings. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal allowed the claim petitions by a common judgment dated 16.5.1996. The first case relates to death of one Mangalal and the Tribunal awarded Rs. 21,61,965/- as compensation. The other four cases relate to injuries sustained by the respective claimants in the same accident and the Tribunal awarded Rs. 84,000/-, Rs. 80,000/-, Rs. 84,000/- and Rs. 1,01,000/- respectively, as compensation. The Tribunal held that the owner and insurer were jointly and severally liable and the amount was recoverable from the insurer.
(2.) The insurer (first respondent) filed appeals before the Madras High Court contending that the insured vehicle had been engaged by a group consisting of claimants and others for a pilgrimage tour in the States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu; that the vehicle did not have a permit to operate as a public service vehicle; that the insurance policy covered the use of the vehicle only under a 'permit' within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or such a carriage falling under Sub-section (3) of Section 66 of the said Act; and that as the permit was not produced, the insurer could not be made liable. The High Court, by its common judgment dated 5.10.2001 accepted the said contentions and set aside the Judgment and awards of the Tribunal insofar as it made the insurer liable. The said judgment is challenged by the claimants.
(3.) The fact that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the first respondent under a comprehensive Commercial Vehicle Insurance Policy on the date of the accident (27.7.1990) is not disputed. The insurance cover under the said policy was available from 31.3.1990 to 30.3.1991. The schedule to the insurance policy shows that the owner of the vehicle had paid in addition to the basic premium, additional premium to cover liability in respect of ten passengers as also the driver. The insurer however contends that as it had denied that the vehicle had a valid permit, the claimants ought to have proved that the vehicle had a valid permit on the date of the accident; and as they failed to do so, it was not liable.;