Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 4782
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, MADURAI BENCH
A. Selvam, J.
United Indian Insurance Company Limited, Rural Branch – Appellant
Versus
M. Periyasamy and V. Rajasekaran – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 884 of 2002
Decided On : 07-08-2008
For the Appellant : R. Srinivasan
For the Respondent: C. Godwin
The main legal point established in the judgment is that Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, applies only to third-party risks and does not apply to parties with a contractual relationship.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Workmen Compensation - Section 157 - The court discussed the applicability of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and concluded that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation to the applicant as the provision is applicable only to third-party risks and not in respect of parties with a contractual relationship.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, a driver, sustained injuries in a car accident and claimed compensation from the employer and the insurance company. The Court of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation awarded compensation, which was appealed by the insurance company.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation to the applicant as per the provisions of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is applicable only to third-party risks and not in respect of parties with a contractual relationship.
Issues: The main issue was whether the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the applicant under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provision of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, applies only to third-party risks and not in respect of parties who are having a contractual relationship.
Final Decision: The civil miscellaneous appeal was allowed, and the impugned order against the insurance company was set aside. The employer was held liable to pay the compensation fixed by the Court of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation.
A. Selvam, J.
This civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred against the order passed in W.C. No. 346 of 2000 by the Court of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Madurai.
2. The first respondent herein as applicant has filed the application and the same has been taken on file in W.C. No. 346 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Madurai, wherein the present appellant has been shown as second opposite party and the second respondent herein has been shown as first opposite party.
3. It is stated in the petition that the accident has taken place near Nakkalapatti Chamber, Madurai District on 13.09.2000 at about 11.00 a.m. The applicant has been working under the opposite party No. I as a driver of the TATA Sumo Car bearing Registration No. TN-57-B-4077 and he has driven the same from Thottappanaikanoor to Usilampatti. The said vehicle has been insured with the opposite party No. II. The applicant has driven TATA Sumo Car with due care and caution, and on the extreme left side of the road and at the time a car bearing Registration No. TN-09-P-3939 has come from opposite side and the driver of the said car has driven the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car bearing Registration No. TN-57-B-4077 and due to accident, the applicant has sustained grievous injuries and he has been taken to Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai. The opposite party No. I is the master of the applicant and the car bearing Registration No. TN-57-B-4077 has been insured with the opposite party No. II. The petitioner has earned monthly salary of Rs. 3,300/-. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner has claimed Rs. 4,23,146/- by way of compensation.
4. In the objection filed on the side of the second opposite party, it has been stated that it is false to say that the applicant has sustained injuries due to accident. The applicant claimed excessive compensation. Further it is stated that on the date of accident, one Muthukumar has insured the vehicle which involved in the accident and the first opposite party is the employer of the applicant and there is no contract between the second opposite party and the first opposite party so as to indemnify the loss and therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.
5. The Court of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Madurai after hearing both sides and upon perusing the relevant records, has come to the conclusion that the applicant is entitled to get Rs. 89,699/- by way of compensation and directed the second opposite party to give the same within thirty days, failing which the second opposite party is liable to pay 12% interest per annum. Against the order passed by the Court of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Madurai, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/second opposite party has laconically contended that the vehicle which involved in the accident has been insured in the name of one Muthukumar for the period from 12.01.2000 to 11.01.2001 and the accident has happened on 13.09.2000 and the insurance policy has been transferred in the name of the first opposite party viz., Rajasekaran only on 19.09.2000. Therefore, on the date of accident, there is no relationship of employee and employer between the applicant and the said Muthukumar, but the Court of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Madurai has failed to look into above aspect and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Court of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Madurai is liable to be dismissed.
7. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent/applicant has also equally contended that the second respondent/first opposite party has purchased the vehicle which involved in the accident from the original owner viz., Muthukumar and the policy has been transferred in his name on 19.09.2000 and as per Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant/second opposite part
