Back
2021 Supreme(Mad) 753
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Irudhayamary – Appellant
Versus
N. Marimuthu & Another – Respondent
C.M.A. No. 1939 of 2017
Decided On : 23-03-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :K. Varadha Kamaraj, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S. Arun Kumar, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation in a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, based on the interpretation of the insurance policy and the circumstances of the accident.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Claim - Section 163A - 173 - 163A - 11, 12 - The court discussed the application of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the liability of the insurance company in a compensation claim. It highlighted the interpretation of the insurance policy, the premium collected, and the liability of the insurance company in cases of accidents involving the owner-cum-driver or the driver of the vehicle. The court's decision emphasized the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation in this case.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant, mother of the accident victim, filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the death of her son in a vehicle accident. The Tribunal partially allowed the claim and awarded compensation against the owner of the vehicle but exonerated the insurance company. The claimant challenged this decision, arguing that the accident was due to the negligence of the vehicle driver and not a mechanical defect.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased sustained severe injuries while cleaning the vehicle and that the insurance policy included a personal accident cover for the owner-cum-driver. It held that the insurance company could not be exonerated from its liability to pay compensation and set aside the Tribunal's decision, directing the insurance company to pay the compensation along with interest.
Issues: The issues revolved around the liability of the insurance company in a compensation claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the interpretation of the insurance policy, and the circumstances of the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the insurance policy, the premium collected for personal accident cover, and the circumstances of the accident, emphasizing the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation in this case.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was partly allowed, and the insurance company was directed to pay the compensation along with interest within a specified period.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and judgment dated 11.12.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.271 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Court), Poonamallee.)
The case has been heard through Video Conferencing)
1. This appeal is filed by the claimant, who is the mother of the accident victim. The Tribunal, which tried the claim petition of the appellant, partially allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.11,20,000/- payable by the owner of the offending vehicle and exonerated the insurance company.
2. In the appeal, the said award is challenged on the ground that the Tribunal went wrong in exonerating the insurance company by holding that the accident happened due to mechanical defect and not due to negligence of the vehicle driver. The Tribunal ignoring the fact that the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, exonerated the insurance company of the vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.6,60,000/- only as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- payable by the vehicle owner.
3. The facts of the case is that, on 10.11.2012, at about 10.30 p.m, when the deceased Karthick, S/o Marimuthu, was cleaning the maxicab bearing Reg.No. TN-22V-6976 owned by his father, the vehicle got self started and hit the deceased, who was cleaning the vehicle and ran over him. The deceased was severely injured and taken to the hospital but died. Claiming Rs.12,00,000/- as compensation against that the owner of the vehicle and its insurer, the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. The Insurance Company filed counter stating that the deceased did not die due to the road accident. He is the son of the insured. The insurance company is not liable to compensate the claim. The claim of Rs.12,00,000/- is extremely high. It is doubtful whether the Maxicab van bearing Reg.No.TN-22-V-6976 suffered mechanical failure or whether the deceased was at fault, which caused the accident. Therefore, the claim petition as against them to be dismissed.
5. Before the Tribunal, the claimant and one Somasundaram were examined as claimant’s witnesses. 6 exhibits were marked in support of the claim petition. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined and the vehicle policy copy was marked as Ex.R1.
6. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence, held that as per the First Information Report, the accident occurred, due to mechanical failure of the maxicab. The engine of the parked van suddenly activated, moved and crushed the deceased, who was cleaning the vehicle. To support this contention found in the First Information Report, the Motor Vehicle Inspector Report certifying that there was a mechanical fault in the vehicle has not been produced. Therefore, the Tribunal suspected the content of the First Information Report and the theory of mechanical fault. Therefore, under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal held that the claimant is not entitled to claim compensation against the Insurance Company and fixed the liability on the owner of the vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.11,20,000/-.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the case of the claimant is that, when her son was cleaning the Maxi cab, the engine of the vehicle got activated and vehicle started moving and hit her son. This contention though found in First Information Report has not been proved through the Motor Vehicle Inspector Report, PW-2(Mr.Somasundaram), who was examined to prove that the accident occurred, due to the mechanical fault of the vehicle, in the cross examination, concedes that he did not see the accident, he went to the scene of the accident after hearing the sound. The First Information Report recorded on 11.11.2012, the day next to the accident was based on the complaint given by the father of the deceased. He is being the owner of th
