2015 Supreme(Mad) 1601

IN THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Madurai – Appellant
Versus
Nalluchamy & Another – Respondent
C.M.A.(MD) No. 562 of 2013 & M.P.(MD) Nos. 1 of 2015 & 2 of 2013
Decided On : 09-03-2015

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 147 – Compensation – First respondent in the appeal is the claimant in MCOP No.505 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai. – The second respondent herein is the owner of the load auto. The said auto is insured with the appellant – Insurance Company and the same is not in dispute. – First respondent / claimant hired the auto to carry his luggage of full 3 bags tomato from Ganesapuram to Kandamanur Market. After unloading the tomato bags in the market, he returned back to Ganesapuram. – On the way, the vehicle met with an accident and the first respondent -claimant got injured in the spinal cord and he was initially admitted to the Theni Government Hospital on the same day and thereafter he got transferred to Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai on the next day, ie., 23.10.2005. – He was in-patient in the Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai up to 03.11.2005. – According to him, due to injury he suffered 50% permanent partial disablement and the first respondent is not able to make proper movement of his neck. – The movement is restricted to 50%.– He claimed a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. – The Tribunal passed the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2010 granting Rs.1,39,000/-. – Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined the Doctor who gave the disability certificate, as P.W.3. – One employee of the Government Hospital at Madurai was examined as P.W.2 as he was summoned to come with hospital documents. – The claimant examined himself as P.W.1. – The Insurance Company examined their officer as a witness. – While Exs.P1 to P4 were marked on the side of the claimant, the insurance policy was marked on the side of the appellant Insurance Company. –Held, As per Section 147(1)(b)(i), the Insurance Company is liable to pay in respect of death or bodily injury of any person including the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. – It has to be decided whether the Insurance Company is liable if on facts the owner or the authorised representative who travelled in the vehicle after unloading the vehicle died or suffered injuries, is entitled to be paid compensation from the Insurance Company. – Provisions of Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act has to be construed liberally. – It is not the case of the Insurance Company that the load auto did not carry the goods, ie., 3 bags of tomatoes of the claimant. – Their case is that after unloading only he travelled and therefore he is not covered. – Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant is of no use. – In that case, though the claimant made a claim that he travelled in the lorry along with the rice bags, this Court came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to claim that he travelled along with the goods. – In those circumstances, this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annamalai, reported in 2011 (2) TN MAC 737 came to the conclusion that the Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company when there is absolutely no evidence to the effect that the claimant travelled along with the goods in the lorry. – But, in the present case, it is admitted that the tomato bags carried by the load auto belongs to the claimant. – The only contention is that the accident took place when he travelled after unloading the goods and hence, he could not claim coverage. – Court is not inclined to reduce the percentage of disability that is fixed at 54% by the Tribunal, particularly in the absence of any contra medical evidence let in by the appellant Insurance Company. – Court do not find that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excess. The total amount is only Rs.1,39,000/-. – Compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed – Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Dismissed.