Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 2912
High Court of Judicature at Madras
C.S. KARNAN
New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager
Versus
Amaravel & Another
C.M.A.No.1048 of 2010 & M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010
Decided on : 23-06-2011
For the Appellant :Elveera Ravindran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, M. Jayachandran, Advocate.
The duty of the insurance company to ensure coverage from the date of payment and the liability of the insurance company under Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 147(1) - The court discussed the insurance coverage period, liability of the insurance company, and the duty of the insurance company to ensure coverage from the date of payment. The court confirmed the award and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was involved in a motor vehicle accident and filed a claim for compensation against the owner and insurer of the other vehicle. The Tribunal found the accident to be caused by the negligence of the other vehicle's driver and awarded compensation to the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the Tribunal's award, holding the insurance company liable to pay compensation to the claimant due to the non-application of mind in specifying the insurance coverage period.
Issues: The issues included the negligence of the driver, insurance coverage, and the entitlement to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation as the insurance policy was not in force on the date of payment, and the duty of the insurance company was to ensure coverage from the date of payment.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the Award and Decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal were confirmed.
1. The above appeal has been filed by the appellant / New India Assurance Company Limited, against the award and decree dated 25.11.2009 made in M.C.O.P.No.844 of 2004, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri.
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-
On 21.08.2004, at about 12.20 hours, the petitioner was proceeding, on the extreme side of the road on his “Hero Honda CD Dawn” bearing Registration No.TN29-F-8055, in order to go to Collectorate Office. While he was proceeding opposite to Gokulam Tea Stall near Collectorate bus stop, on the Dharmapuri to Salem Road, the Ambassador car bearing Registration No.TN09-A-4191, coming from Dharmapuri to Salem, driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner's vehicle. Due to the impact, the petitioner's right leg bone was fractured and he also sustained multiple injuries all over his body. He was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Dharmapuri, where first aid was given and subsequently he was taken to Salem Kurinji Hospital, where he remained as inpatient for 45 days. Hence, the petitioner has filed a claim for Rs.10,00,000/- against the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the car bearing Registration No.TN09-A-4191.
3. The second respondent, the New India Assurance Company Limited, in his counter has resisted the claim stating that the petitioner had no driving licence to drive the two wheeler at the time of accident. It was also stated that the petitioner had driven his vehicle bearing Registration No.TN29-F-8055, rashly and negligently and had suddenly turned the same, without noticing that the vehicles were plying on the main road and by ignoring the horn sound of the driver of the Car. As the Car was driven slowly, the driver of the Car had averted a major accident. Hence it was stated that the accident was caused only by the rash and negligent riding of the petitioner. It was also stated that the car bearing Registration No.TN09-A-4191 was not insured with the respondent on the date of alleged accident. It was also stated that the driver of the Car did not have a valid driving licence to drive the Car at the time of accident. It was further stated that as the petitioner had not impleaded the owner and Insurance Company of the two wheeler, for proper adjudication, the petition is bad and liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. The respondent has also denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of petitioner, nature of injuries, period of treatment and permanent disability sustained by the petitioner. It was stated that the claim was excessive.
4. On the petitioner's side three witnesses were examined and sixteen documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P16. On the respondents side, one witness was examined and three documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R3.
5. On the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration, namely;
(i)Was the accident caused by the negligence of the driver of the first respondent's vehicle and was the vehicle covered under a policy of insurance with the second respondent?
(ii)Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?”
6. PW1 had adduced evidence which was in consonance with the version of accident as mentioned in the claim. In support of his claim, he had marked Exs.P1 to P11 viz., First Information Report, Discharge Summary issued by Kurinji Hospital, Salem, Wound Certificate, Insurance Policy, Salary Certificate, Receipt for insurance policy, driving licence of Car driver, Discharge summary issued by Karaikudi Medical Hospital, CT Scan report issued by Dr.Shankar, medical bills, transport bills. On the respondents side, the Administrative Officer of the second respondent was examined as RW1. Though RW1 had admitted that the accident had occurred, he had adduced evidence that the said accident had not been caused due to
