SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(Mad) 520

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. Sethuraman, J.
C. Abdul Salara .....Appellant(s)
Versus
A. A. Jaleel and others .....Respondent(s)
A.A.O. No. 259 of 1976.
Decided On : 22 September 1978

Advocates:
G.M. Nathan and P. R. Raishnan, for Appellant.
S. J. Jayadev, Kurian Arumugam and Joseph, for Respondents.

Award of compensation under W.M. Compensation Act.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Section 95-Fixation of statutory liability-Accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of lorry-Compensation awarded under workmens compensation Act to the injured cleaner f the lorry.

Judgment.- This appeal has been filed by the first respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 74 of 1973 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore. The petitioner before the Tribunal by name Jaleel was employed as a cleaner in a lorry bearing No. M.D.U. 256 belonging to the appellant. On 29th May, 1972, he was travelling in the lorry with a load of sugarcane from Karur to Manapparai. On account of the alleged rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal, the driver, the vehicle is said to have capsized at Malakoil near Tachanur village. The first respondent’s legs got underneath the lorry causing grievous injuries to him. He was in the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital as an in-patients from 29th September, 1972, to 21st November, 1972, during which period his left leg was amputated on 4th October, 1972. He claimed to have been undergoing treatment even later, and had also an artificial limb fixed after the wound was completely healed. He claimed Rs. 50,000 as compensation out of which Rs. 40,000 was for loss of earning power and for permanent disability, Rs. 5,000 towards artificial limb and for medical expenses, Rs. 4,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 1,000 for loss of earning. The owner and the driver admitted that the first respondent herein was employed as a cleaner of the lorry on an income of Rs. 170 per month. They also admitted that as a result of the accident his legs had been amputated. They contended that the vehicle had been insured to cover the risk of the cleaner and, that therefore, they were not liable to pay any compensation. The 2nd and 3rd respondents herein are the insurance companies. They disputed the question of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver. They also contended that they were not liable. The. 3rd respondent insurance company herein contended that the liability arising out of the accident had to be borne only by the 2nd respondent herein and that it was not a necessary party to the action. The quantum of damage was also disputed.

2. The Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and awarded Rs. 4,900 as damages payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and Rs. 15,100 as damages under the general law. The damages payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act was decreed as against respondents 2 and 3 herein, the insurance companies, while the damages payable under the general law was decreed as against the appellant the owner of the vehicle. The appellant contends in the present appeal that even as regards the amount due as compensation under the general law, the amount would have to be paid by the insurance companies and not by him Therefore, the only point that requires consideration in the present appeal is, whether the liability of the insurance companies could be restricted, only to the sum payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

3. In this connection three decisions were brought to my notics, two of them being the decisions of this Court and one being of the Allahabad High Court. In Venkataraman v. Abdul Munaf Sahib1 the cleaner of a lorry died in an accident on account of the negligence of the driver of the lorry. His dependants filed an application for compensation before the Tribunal. The contention urged on behalf of the insurance company was that it was not liable to pay any compensation in respect of an employee of the insured and that even assuming that it was liable to pay compensation its liability had to be restricted to the amount payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. There was also the plea that the amount due under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, had to be pursued only before the authorities contemplated by that Act and not before the Tribunal. It was held by Maharajan, J., that section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act provided for a statutory duty on the insurance company to indemnify the insured against any liability to Pay compensation to his employ





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top