Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
The Branch Manager, M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Dhanapakkiyam & Others – Respondents
C.M.A. Nos. 119 to 122 of 2017 & C.M.P. Nos. 891 to 894 of 2017
Decided On : 06-01-2021
Motor Vehicles Act - Liability of Insurance Company - Section 173 - 2013(1) TNMAC 850 - The court discussed the violation of policy conditions and the statute, the definition of 'light motor vehicle' under Section 2(21) and (23) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the interpretation of the driver's license requirements. The court applied the principle of pay and recovery and upheld the Tribunal's decision to hold the Insurance Company liable for the compensation.
Fact of the Case:
Four claim petitions were filed after an accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of an auto, resulting in severe injuries to the claimants who were fish vendors. The Insurance Company contested the claim on the grounds of permit and policy condition violations.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to award compensation to the claimants and hold the Insurance Company liable, citing the violation of policy conditions and the statute, and the absence of badge endorsement in the driver's license.
Issues: Violation of policy conditions, permit violation, liability of the Insurance Company, and assessment of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of pay and recovery, interpreted the definition of 'light motor vehicle' under the Motor Vehicles Act, and upheld the Tribunal's decision based on the absence of grounds to interfere.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were dismissed, and no costs were awarded. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer in C.M.A.No.119 of 2017: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 2015 on 28.08.2015 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate-MACT) at Nagapattinam District.
C.M.A.No.120 of 2017: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.29 of 2015 on 28.08.2015 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate-MACT) at Nagapattinam District.
C.M.A.No.121 of 2017: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.31 of 2015 on 28.08.2015 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate-MACT) at Nagapattinam District.
C.M.A.No.122 of 2017: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2015 on 28.08.2015 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate-MACT) at Nagapattinam District.)
(The case has been heard through video conference)
1. The batch of four appeals arising out of a common judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam.
2. Four claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal in respect of an accident occurred on 29.03.2014, while the claim petitioners were travelling in an Auto bearing Reg.No.TN-51-C-1431 from Nagapattinam to Velankanni for purchase of fishes, dashed behind the lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-28-K-2040 near Veerankudikadu bus stop.
3. The common facts involved in these cases is that on the date of the accident, (1)Tmt. Dhanapakkiyam the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.21 of 2015(C.M.A.No.119 of 2017); (2)Tmt.Ramadevi the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.29 of 2015(C.M.A.No.120 of 2017); (3)Tmt.Palaniyammal the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.31 of 2015 (C.M.A.No.121 of 2015); and (4)Tmt.Janaki the petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2015 (C.M.A.No.122 of 2017) all are fish vendors and have gone together in the Auto from their Village to Nagapattinam for purchasing fish. On the way, near Veerankudikadu bus stop, the Auto, in which they were travelling, dashed behind the lorry in which all the four claimants sustained severe injury and they were taken to Nagapattinam Government Hospital and admitted as inpatient and given treatment.
4. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver. Hence, holding the owner of the auto and the Insurance Company liable for the injury sustained and loss of income, the claimants have made the following claim:-
2. Ramadevi in M.C.O.P.No.29 of 2015 had claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
3. Palaniyammal in M.C.O.P.No.31 of 2015 had claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.
4. Janaki in M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2015 had claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.
5. The respondent/Insurance Company filed a common counter wherein they contested the claim on the ground that the Auto driver had no valid driving licence and seven persons were travelling in the load Auto against the permit and policy condition. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. In the additional counter, it has been specifically contended that since the owner of the vehicle has remained ex parte and not furnished the details about the vehicle, they have wrongly mentioned the Auto as a load Auto and now, they come to know that the Auto in which the claimants were travelling was a passenger vehicle. The permitted capacity for a passenger auto is only 3 +1. No extra premium was paid by the vehicle owner to cover the wider risk. At the time of accident, seven passengers along with the driver totally eight persons were travel
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
