M. Venugopal, J. - (1.)The appellants- petitioners have filed this civil miscellaneous appeal as against the award dated 20.1.2003 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 4647 of 1998 by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fourth Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, directing the respondent No. 1 to pay sum of Rs. 92,000 (rupees ninety-two thousand) (including interim relief) to the appellants-petitioners along with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of award till date of deposit into court, etc.
(2.)The short facts of the claim are as follows:
(i) On 5.5.1998 at about 16 hours while Udayakumar (deceased) was crossing the Manjabakkam Road towards Redhills direction at that time a lorry bearing registration No. TN 01-A 5049 came from Redhills Market towards Manali, driven in a very rash and negligent fashion by its driver at a terrific speed endangering public safety and knocked down the deceased and as a result of the said accident, the deceased fell down and the wheels of the lorry ran over the deceased's legs and later he expired at the hospital due to multiple injuries. The accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and the respondent No. 1 (owner of the offending lorry) and insurance company (insurer) respondent No. 2, are vicariously liable to pay the compensation with interest and costs from the date of filing of the petition to the claimants/parents. (ii) The insurance company, respondent No. 2 in its counter took a denial that on 5.5.1998 at about 16 hours when the deceased was crossing Manjabakkam Road, a lorry bearing registration No. TN 01-A 5049 proceeding from Redhills Market to Manali was driven in a rash and negligent manner and knocked down the appellants- petitioners' son and ran over his legs resulting in fatal injuries. (iii) The insurance company, respondent No. 2, also took a plea that the driver of the offending lorry was not in possession of a valid driving licence and that the respondent No. 1's driver was possessing a licence to drive heavy goods vehicle alone and that he was not having the special endorsement in his favour, in his driving licence to drive the vehicles carrying hazardous goods. Moreover, the claim made under several captions in the claim petition were speculative and imaginary and the claim of Rs. 1,00,000 was highly excessive. (iv) Inasmuch as the driver of the lorry bearing registration No. TN 01-A 5049 was not having the valid driving licence at the time of accident, there was no privity of contract to pay the claim amount on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and hence on this score, the petition was liable to be dismissed against the insurance company. (v) Before the Tribunal, the respondent No. 1 was set ex parte. (vi) Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the appellants-claimants, witness PW 1 (claimant No. 2) was examined and Exhs. A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of respondent No. 2, witnesses RW 1 and RW 2 were examined and Exhs. R1 and R2 were marked. (vii) The Tribunal, on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, has come to the conclusion that the appellants-claimants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 92,000 (including the interim relief) from the respondent No. 1- owner of the offending lorry together with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of payment and passed an award accordingly. Eight weeks time was granted for depositing the aforesaid amount before the Claims Tribunal.

(3.)Dissatisfied with the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal viz., Fourth Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the claimants as appellants have preferred this appeal before this court.