Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1465
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Future General India Insurance Company Limited, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – Appellant
Versus
Valli & Others – Respondent
C.M.A. No. 483 of 2016 & C.M.P. No. 3759 of 2016
Decided On : 04-11-2020
For the Appellant :Harini, N. Vijayaraghavan, Advocates.
For the Respondents: R1 to R3, No appearance, R4, died, R5, No appearance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurance company under the Motor Vehicles Act, based on the violation of policy conditions and the Act's provisions.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Liability of Insurance Company - Sections 173, 149, 149(2)(a)(i), 149(2)(a)(ii), 149(2)(a)(iii), 149(2)(b) - The court discussed the violation of Motor Vehicles Act by the offending vehicle, the insurance coverage period, and the quantum of compensation awarded. The key legal provisions interpreted include Sections 149 and 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which deal with the liability of insurers in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person. The court's decision was influenced by the violation of policy conditions and the Motor Vehicles Act, leading to the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation to the claimants.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was involved in a road accident and subsequently died due to the injuries sustained. The claimants filed a petition for compensation against the vehicle owner and the insurance company. The insurance company contested the claim on the grounds of invalid insurance and driver's license, and the deceased's contribution to the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the offending vehicle had no valid registration on the date of the accident, constituting a violation of the Motor Vehicles Act. The insurance company was held liable to pay compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the owner. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was modified based on the evidence presented.
Issues: The issues involved the liability of the insurance company, the validity of the insurance coverage, and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the violation of policy conditions and the Motor Vehicles Act, which established the liability of the insurance company to compensate the claimants for the accident.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was partly allowed, modifying the award amount to Rs.6,79,749-00 and directing the insurance company to deposit the award money within a specified period.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.24 of 2012 dated 12.02.2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Mettur.)
(The case has been heard through Video Conferencing)
1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance company, aggrieved by the fixation of liability as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. On 06.12.2011, in front of Kanaga Hospital on Omalur to Darmapuri Main Road, while the deceased Arumugam was riding his TVS Scooty Streak motor cycle bearing Reg.No.TN 30 AY 3341, an unnumbered TATA Ace bearing Reg.No.TN 30 AW 0175 rash and negligently dashed the deceased vehicle. Due to sudden hit, the deceased fell down and sustained injury all over his body. He was taken to the hospital for treatment, but on 22.12.2012 he died at Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore due to the injuries. At the time of his death, the deceased was about 64 years old. He was an Ex-Service Man, earning pension and also a LIC Agent. Hence, his wife, two sons and father filed a claim petition for Rs.30 lakhs as compensation against the vehicle owner and the insurance company.
3. The Insurance Company contested the claim on the ground that the TATA Ace vehicle had no valid insurance and its driver had no valid driving license. The deceased contributed for the accident. Therefore, the owner of the two wheeler and its insurer are necessary parties. The claim of compensation under various heads are denied and disputed.
4. The Trial Court considering the evidence let in by the claimants and the insurance company, had awarded a sum of Rs.16,00,749.00 with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a., payable by the Insurance company to the cliamants.
5. In the appeal, it is contested by the Insurance Company that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the appellant/insurer, when the insured vehicle was not having valid registration on the date of accident and there was breach of policy terms and violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. It was contended that the offending vehicle had only temporary registration, which expired on 30.11.2011 and got permanent registration only on 15.12.2011 six days after the accident. Since on the date of accident, the offending vehicle had not valid registration, it amounts to violation of Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner. It is also contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the entire pension of Rs.18,000/- without deducting the family pension of Rs.6,000/-drawn by the wife of the deceased. The Tribunal has also erred in considering Ex.P10-Statement of Account, which indicates that the deceased was earning around Rs.10,000/- per year as commission. Whereas, the Tribunal erred in fixing the loss of income at Rs.27,000/-.
6. Referring Ex.R3-Registration Certificate and Ex.R2-Motor Vehicle Inspector Report, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the offending vehicle was insured under the appellant Insurance Company on 01.11.2011. When it had temporary registration valid upto 30.11.2011. The owner of the vehicle should have registered the vehicle permanently, but he has failed to get the permanent registration number within the time limit. The accident occurred on 06.12.2011, when the vehicle has no registration either temporary or permanent. The vehicle though insured had no valid registration on the date of accident. Therefore, for violation of policy condition as well as the Motor Vehicles Act, the right of pay and recovery should be granted to the Insurance Company.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Perused records.
8. This Court, on perusing the records, finds force in the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
