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

2002 Supreme(Mad) 1588

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. RAJAN
National Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Samiyathal and Others - Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1031 of 1996
Decided On : 31 December 2002

Advocates Appeared: For the Appellant:Mr. S. Arunkumar, Advocate. For the Respondent 1 to 4:Mr. V.K. Nachimuthu, Advocate, 6: Mr. Kaithaimalai Kumaran for Mr. A.K. Kumarasamy.

In appeal both Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle made liable to pay the award amount.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Motor Accident-Death-Claim petition by widow and children of the deceased for awarding compensation-Award passed against Insurance Company-Appeal filed by Insurance Company Award modified.

Judgment :-

P. Sathasivam, J.

Aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Erode, dated 31-01-1996 made in M.C.O.P.No. 336 of 1992, National Insurance Company Limited, Bhavani has preferred the above appeal.

2. In respect of death of one Karuppanna Gounder in a motor accident that took place on 04-12-1988, his widow and children preferred a claim for Rs.2,00,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the first claimant, widow of the deceased got herself examined as P.W.1 and she also examined two more witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3, besides marking documents as Exs. P-1 to P-7 in support of their claim for compensation. On the side of the Insurance Company, their officer was examined as R.W.1 and documents were marked as Exs.R-1 to R-5. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, after holding that the accident was caused due to negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, passed an award for Rs.1,61,000/- and directed the Insurance company/appellant herein to settle the same. Questioning its liability, the Insurance company has preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondents.

4. Mr. S. Arunkumar, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company, by pointing out the fact that the driver was not having a valid driving licence to drive a lorry on the date of the accident, would contend that the Tribunal committed an error in passing the award against the Insurance company. He also contended that, in any event, since the statutory liability is restricted to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/-, the direction of the Tribunal fastening the entire liability namely Rs.1,61,000/- on them (Insurance company) cannot be sustained.

5. In the light of the limited question raised by the appellant/Insurance company, it is unnecessary for us to consider the findings with regard to the negligence and the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal.

6. With regard to the first contention that the driver was not possessed of a valid driving licence to drive the lorry, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, it is the Insurance Company to substantiate their plea by placing necessary materials that the driver was not having a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. In the counter statement, the Insurance Company has taken a plea that the driver was not having a valid licence to drive lorry. In support of their plea, the Insurance company has examined one Benchamin, an officer working in the Regional Office as R.W.1. He deposed before the Court that the lorry belonged to the second respondent/6th respondent herein. The said lorry was insured with their company and there was a valid policy for the period from 11-1-88 to 10-1-1989. A copy of the insurance policy has been marked as Ex.R-1. He admitted that as per the policy their liability to third parties is limited to Rs.1,50,000/-, for which the owner has paid a premium of Rs.240/-. He also deposed that no additional premium has been paid for unlimited liability. According to him, on the date of the accident, the lorry driver-Kandasamy/5th respondent herein was not having a valid licence to drive lorry. He further deposed that he (driver) was charge-sheeted for the same. According to him, their company had sent a notice-Ex.R-2 on 12-01-95 to the driver-Kandasamy to produce his driving licence. Ex.R-2 was returned un-served, and the returned cover has been marked as Ex.R-3. The insurance company had also sent a similar notice dated 29-5-95 to the owner of the lorry-Chinnasamy informing him about the non-production of driving licence by the driver and the violation of Motor Vehicles Act and policy conditions, and the same has been marked as Ex. R-4. Since the owner refused to receive the registered notice, the same was returned and the returned cover has been marked as Ex. R-5. It is true that R.W.1 has admitted that the Insurance company had not taken steps to ascertain from the Reg








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top