Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2086
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
National Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Vs.
L. Ganesan and Ors. - Respondent
C.M.A (MD) Nos. 1823 of 2010 & 1824 of 2010 and M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 & 1 of 2010 and M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 & 1 of 2011
Decided On : 06-09-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. D. Sivaraman
For the Respondents: Mr. M. Suri
Interpretation of insurance policy provisions and liability of the insurer in case of accidents during trial run
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Interpretation of insurance policy provisions
Fact of the Case:
The claimants sustained injuries in a road accident and filed claim petitions against the owner and insurer of the mini bus involved in the accident. The insurer contended that they were not liable to pay compensation as the vehicle was on trial run at the time of the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the mini bus and rejected the insurer's contention that they were not liable to pay compensation due to the vehicle being on trial run. The court also dismissed the appeals filed by the insurance company.
Issues: Interpretation of insurance policy provisions, liability of the insurer in case of accidents during trial run
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the insurance policy provisions and concluded that the insurer was liable to pay compensation despite the vehicle being on trial run, based on the specific wording of the policy and the absence of evidence to support the insurer's contention.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the insurance company were dismissed, and the company was directed to deposit the entire award amount to the credit of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the claimants to withdraw.
Both the appeals arise out of common award, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai, in M.C.O.P. Nos. 66 & 67 of 2009, dated 29.06.2010.
2. In view of the Common Award, both the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The parties are referred to as per their rank in the claim petitions.
4. The appellants in both the appeals are second respondent in M.C.O.P. Nos. 66 & 67 of 2009. The first respondent in both the appeals are the claimants and they have filed claim petitions claiming a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation, respectively, for the injuries sustained by them in the accident that occurred on 16.12.2008.
5. According to the claimants, on 16.12.2008, they were traveling in the Auto bearing Registration No. TN-63-E-4469 belonging to one Murugesan, the claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 67 of 2009. At that time in Sivagangai to Thiruppathur road near Ilanthaikudipatti Kanmai, the mini bus bearing Registration No. TN-39-H-3933 belonging to the first respondent, insured with the second respondent was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto, in which, the claimants were travelling. The claimants sustained multiple injuries and they took treatment. The first respondent is the owner of the mini bus and the second respondent is the insurer of the mini bus and hence, the claimants have filed the claim petitions against both the respondents.
6. The first respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.
7. The second respondent filed counter statement in both the claim petitions and contended that the Mini bus was on trial run at the time of accident. As per the policy condition, the second respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants, when the vehicle insured was on trial run.
8. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Mini bus and also held that the contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent that policy does not cover the accident, when the vehicle was on trial run, cannot be accepted to the accident that occurred in the present case, as in the policy marked as Ex.R1, it has been mentioned as “Reliability Trail” and not mentioned as Trial. Therefore, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- and Rs.1,48,000/- respectively, to the claimants and held that the second respondent is liable to pay compensation.
9. Against the said award, the appellant Insurance Company has filed the present appeals.
10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record.
11. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal failed to see the words that “Reliability Trails” in Ex.R.1 Policy is a typographical error instead of mentioning “Reliability Trial”. The Tribunal considering the meaning of both the words “Trial” and “Trails” from advanced Deluxe Dictionary, held that “Reliability Trail” mentioned in the policy does not refer to “Realiability Trial” as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/appellant. The second respondent has not produced before the Tribunal any other policy to show that 'Trails' typed in the present policy, marked as Ex.R1 is a typographical error. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conclusion of the Tribunal.
12. The Tribunal has considered the evidence of claimants and P.W.3 and P.W.2, awarded a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- and Rs.1,48,000/- respectively to the claimants, which are just and proper.
13. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount, less the amount already deposited, if any, along with accrued interest and costs to the credit of M.C.O.P. Nos. 66 & 67 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai, within a period of ei
