Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 4141
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AT MADURAI BENCH
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
V. Mani – Respondent
CMA (MD) Nos. 988, 1259 of 2005, CMP (MD) No. 6145 of 2005, M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 of 2006, 1, 2 of 2008
Decided On : 23-11-2016
For the Appellant : Ms. K. Mahalakshmi for Mr. R.P. Ramachanthiran.
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Srinivasa Raghavan.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicle Act- Section 147, 147 (1) and 147 (i) (b) (i) - It is the case of an injury caused on account of the accident on road - Injured victim filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, and Tribunal considering facts and circumstances of case, awarded as total compensation with interest - Challenging the award, National Insurance Company preferred CMA (MD) No. 988 and not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, injured/ claimant preferred CMA (MD) No. 1259 , seeking enhancement of compensation - Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company contended that the vehicle met with accident, is a goods vehicle and as per the policy conditions and conditions of registration, only two persons are permitted to travel in the said vehicle, including the driver and no coverage is given in respect of a third person, who was travelling in the goods vehicle - Learned counsel for the insurance company further contended that in respect of two persons covered by policy, including the cleaner, claims were settled and documents were marked before Tribunal, to establish that they have complied with the policy conditions - Held, In this judgment also, it is clarified that the owner of the goods accompanied with the driver is covered under the policy and entitled for compensation from the insurance company, but it has never been stated in the facts of the case that there were three persons travelling in the vehicle - Hence, judgment also has no application to the facts of the present case on hand, in which, three persons were travelling and the insurance company had paid compensation in respect of driver and cleaner - Yet another judgment relied on by the counsel for the claimant reported enumerates the statutory coverage for the owner of goods accompanying the vehicle - Therefore, the judgment in case, submitted by the counsel for the claimant, also has no application in respect of facts of present case - It is unambiguously proved by the insurance company before the Tribunal that another person namely, cleaner who was travelling along with the driver was awarded with compensation and insurance company settled compensation in respect of the cleaner - Further, third person cannot be fitted with the coverage of the driver and the status of the driver can never be changed under any circumstances - In view of the fact that second person namely, cleaner, had already received the compensation from the insurance company, another third person cannot be entitled to receive the compensation from the insurance company - The appellant insurance company is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with interest lying in the credit of the claim petition, by making necessary application before the Tribunal - In result, CMA (MD) No. 988 filed by the insurance company is allowed and CMA (MD) No. 1259 filed by claimant is dismissed - Consequently, CMP (MD) No. 6145 and M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 and 1 & 2 are closed.
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
1. It is the case of an injury caused on account of the accident took place on 13.04.2001 around 02.00 p.m. on Karambakudi to Malaiyur road near Ariyandi Pirivu road. The injured victim filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai, and the Tribunal considering the facts and the circumstances of the case, awarded Rs. 2,53,870/- as total compensation with interest at 9% per annum. Challenging the award, the National Insurance Company preferred CMA (MD) No. 988 of 2005 and not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the injured/ claimant preferred CMA (MD) No. 1259 of 2005, seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company contended that the vehicle met with the accident, is a goods vehicle and as per the policy conditions and the conditions of the registration, only two persons are permitted to travel in the said vehicle, including the driver and no coverage is given in respect of a third person, who was travelling in the goods vehicle. Learned counsel for the insurance company further contended that in respect of two persons covered by policy, including the cleaner, the claims were settled and the documents were marked before the Tribunal, to establish that they have complied with the policy conditions. In respect of the third person, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. To substantiate this, the Registration Certificate of the goods vehicle as well as the policy of insurance were marked as Exs.R1 & R2 and these documents were not disputed by the injured claimant before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal erroneously found that there was violation of policy conditions as well as the conditions stipulated in the Registration Certificate of the goods vehicle, and awarded compensation, on the ground that the claimant was travelling as owner of the goods and therefore, he is covered under the insurance policy.
3. Learned counsel for the claimant opposed the contentions of the insurance company, by stating that only two persons can be covered under the policy and the claimant being the owner of the goods, is entitled to get compensation from the insurance company. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following decisions:-
(i) Shobha Devi vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. CDJ 2013 DHC 2139
(ii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Selvi, 2014 (1) TN MAC 714
(iii) K. Murugan vs. M. Panchavarnam, 2013 (1) TN MAC 870
(iv) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. A. Manoharan, 2015 (2) TN MAC 788
4. Heard both sides.
5. In the judgment reported in Shobha Devi vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. CDJ 2013 DHC 2139 the Delhi High Court considered the issue as hereunder:-
4. The averments made in the Review Petition are refuted by the Respondent Insurance Company. It is, however, conceded that the seating capacity as per the registration certificate was two. It is stated that in the insurance policy, the seating capacity was mentioned as one and premium of Rs. 25/- towards legal liability of one more person for operation/maintenance was charged.
5. I have already extracted Para 4 of the impugned judgment wherein this Court relied on the judgment in United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Suresh K.K. (2008) (12) SCC 657 and observed that in a three wheeler goods carriage, the driver could not have allowed anybody else to share his seat. Since it is proved that the seating capacity was two, another person was entitled to sit in vehicle No. DL-1LH-1762 involved in the accident in addition to the driver.
6. Learned counsel for the Respondent Insurance Company has not been able to explain as to how the premium of Rs. 25/- was charged as legal liability for operation/maintenance for one more person in addition to the driver. In any case, even if no separate premium is charged for the owner of the goods, the risk is required to be covered for the owner of the goods by Se
