Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 627
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Dhanalakshmi and Others – Respondents
C.M.A. No. 1940 of 2016, C.M.P. No. 14132 of 2016
Decided On : 06-08-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : D. Bhaskaran.
For the Respondent: Sivakumar.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the ownership of the vehicle, as evidenced by the registration certificate, is crucial in determining the entitlement to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly in the context of personal accident (PA) policy provisions.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Section 163A, Section 166
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a motor accident where the deceased, who was the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle, was seeking compensation under Section 163A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurance company contested the claim based on ownership transfer and insurance policy details.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased, as the owner-cum-driver, was entitled to compensation under the personal accident (PA) policy, despite the lapse in informing the insurance company about the ownership transfer. The court reduced the awarded compensation to Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest at 7.5%.
Issues: The key issues included the entitlement of the owner-cum-driver to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the impact of ownership transfer on insurance coverage, and the interpretation of personal accident (PA) policy provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lapse in informing the insurance company about the ownership transfer did not exonerate the insurance company from its liability to pay personal accident (PA) compensation. The court emphasized that the ownership of the vehicle, as evidenced by the registration certificate, was crucial in determining the entitlement to compensation.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, reducing the compensation to Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% and apportioned the amount among the claimants.
JUDGMENT :
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 20.01.2016 made in O.P. No. 361 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge), Krishnagiri.
1. This appeal by the Insurance Company is pegged to a short question whether a tort-feasor in the motor accident case also happen to be the owner-cum-driver, can get compensation under Section 163A or under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after referred to “the Act”).
2. On 26.12.2013 midnight, the deceased Vickraman was driving his Alto Maruthi car bearing Registration No. TN-21-J-7971 from Gungarahalli village in Bommidi to Dharmapuri town. His car capsized while trying to avert the huge excavation in the middle of the road dig for constructing culvert. At the time of accident, there were 4 occupants in the car including the owner-cum-driver Vickraman. Due to the injuries, Vickraman was taken to the hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries. Yet another occupant also died while two others survived with injuries. First Information Report was registered against Vickraman for rash and negligent driving.
3. At the time of his death, Vickraman was 23 years old, pursuing his B.E. (Mechanical Engineering) in Anna University. The Alto Car was purchased by him from one Vasu S/o Vijayakumar. The RC (Registration Certificate) stood in the name of Vickraman after name transfer. The Insurance Cover was in force and valid at the time of accident. However, the Insurance Policy stood in the name of the erstwhile owner.
4. Claim petition M.C.O.P. No. 361 /2014 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Krishnagiri was filed claiming compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only) by the mother, father and sister of the deceased Vickraman. Based on details in the insurance policy of the vehicle, Vasu the erstwhile owner and the insurance company were arrayed as respondents.
5. The first respondent Vasu, in his counter has brought to the notice of the Court that he was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident. He sold the vehicle to Vickraman on 13.04.2013 and transferred the RC (Registration Certificate) to his name on 12.06.2013. The purchaser of the vehicle has not informed the name transfer to the Insurance Company to effect corresponding change in the Insurance Policy. He is not a necessary party, since the ownership has changed. As a owner, the accident victim alone is responsible for the acts connected with the use of the vehicle.
6. The second respondent-Insurance Company in its counter contented that, the insurance policy for the car Maruthi Alto TN-21-J-7971 was issued in the name of the first respondent Vasu for the period from 22.02.2013 to 21.02.2014. Subsequently, the vehicle has been sold to the accident victim Vickraman and RC (Registration Certificate) of the said car was transferred to the name of the deceased on 12.06.2013. The transfer of ownership was not intimated to the insurance company by the purchaser. On the date of accident, there was no contract of insurance between the deceased and the insurance company. Further, it was also contented that, the owner of the car not covered under the said policy and no premium paid in this regard. Being the owner-cum-driver and the tort-feasor, no compensation is payable. Therefore, the claim petition is not maintainable against them.
7. Initially, the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for a compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs. Later, on petition, it was amended as Section 163-A of the Act for a compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs. The Tribunal, after considering the material facts and evidence placed before it, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,43,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
8. The award amount was apportioned among the claiman
