SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Mad) 590

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Vellore - Appellant
Versus
Krishnaveni & Others - Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1746 of 2016 & M.P. No. 1 of 2015 & C.M.P. No. 5744 of 2016
Decided On : 14-09-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :D. Baskaran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:K.A. Ravindran, Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the extent of liability of the Insurer under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen Compensation Act, and the interpretation of relevant case laws.

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act - Liability of Insurer - Section 166, Section 149, Workmen Compensation Act - 1923 - 2008 (2) TNMAC 137 (Mad), 2013 (1) TNMAC 161 (SC), Smt. Sarla Verma others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another - 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC) - The court discussed the liability of the insurer under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen Compensation Act, the option available to claimants, and the application of structured formula provided under Schedule IV of the Workmen Compensation Act. The court also considered the privity of contract between the insurer and insured and the interpretation of relevant case laws.

Fact of the Case:

The claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the respondents against the appellant (Insurer) and the 3rd respondent (Insured) seeking compensation for an accident. The Insurer denied liability, arguing that the victim was the tortfeasor and the claim was not maintainable under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Tribunal erred in holding the Driver as a third party and that the Insurer was liable only to the extent of the Insured's liability under the Workmen Compensation Act. The court also directed the appellant to deposit the awarded amount within twelve weeks.

Issues: The issues included the liability of the Insurer under the Motor Vehicles Act, the privity of contract between the insurer and insured, and the maintainability of the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Insurer was liable only to the extent of the Insured's liability under the Workmen Compensation Act and not more. It also considered the privity of contract between the insurer and insured and the interpretation of relevant case laws.

Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was partly allowed, and the appellant was directed to deposit the awarded amount within twelve weeks.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 11.07.2013 made in O.P.No.215 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Gudiyattam, Vellore District.)

1. Aggrieved by the award dated 11/07/2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gudiyatham in M.C.O.P.No.215 of 2009, fixing the liability on the Insurer, the United India Insurance Co., Ltd, has filed the above appeal.

2. The claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, filed by the respondents 1 and 2 against the appellant (Insurer) and the 3rd respondent (Insured) herein was allowed by the Tribunal by awarding a sum of Rs. 7,56,000/- with 7.5% interest payable by the Insurer and the Insured jointly and severely. The same is challenged by the Insurer as contrary to law and excessive.

3. The third respondent herein is the owner of the TATA Sumo Car bearing registration No. TN 32 A 4995. The vehicle had insurance coverage under the appellant. It has package policy valid between 18/09/2008 and 17/09/2009. On 29/03/2009, the vehicle capsized on the Bangalore -Chennai National Highways near Neervallur Village when its Driver suddenly applied brake to avoid hitting a bullock crossing the road. The Driver and 4 others got injured. They all were taken to the Meenakshi Medical College Hospital. Later, the Driver Chakravarthy who was injured severely was shifted to Ramachandra Medical College for better treatment. Thiru.Rajesh, the owner of the car/the third respondent herein, who was one of the occupants in the Car gave the first information to the Police. Based on his information, FIR was registered against the Driver of the Car for his rash and negligent driving. The Driver died on 28/04/2008 in the hospital.

4. The wife and daughter of the deceased accident victim filed claim petition seeking Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation. The claim was based on the averments that the deceased was working as Driver earning a sum of Rs.16,000/- pm. He was 50 years old at the time of his death. The owner of the vehicle and its Insurer are liable to pay Rs.12,00,000/- for the medical expenses and Rs.8,00,000/- for pain and sufferings.

5. The Insurer denied their liability on the ground that the victim was the tortfeasor. He did not possess driving license. As an employee under the owner/third respondent herein, the claimants are at the most entitled for compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. The claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is not maintainable. The accident victim died while he was discharging his duties. The owner of the vehicle/third respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation, if any.

6. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence, relying upon the Judgment of this court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Manimaran and another reported in 2008 (2) TNMAC 137 (Mad), held that even if the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the Driver, his dependants are entitled to get compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act since, the Driver is a third party. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Oriental Insurance Co. vs. Dayaava and others reported in 2013 (1) TNMAC 161 (SC), held that the claimants have the option to choose between Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 and the Motor vehicles Act, 1988. Hence, the petition before the Tribunal which was filed under the Motor Vehicles Act is maintainable.

7. Having held so, the Tribunal based on the post mortem report, fixed the age of the victim as 60 years. Fixed his annual income as Rs.36,000/- after deducting 1/3rd for his personal expenses applied multiplier 9 as per the thumb rule prescribed in Smt. Sarla Verma others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another - 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC) and awarded Rs.2,16,000/- towards loss of future income, Rs.5,14,842/- towards Medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- for consortium

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top