Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
M/s. Bajaj Allainz General Insurance Company Limited, Nungambakkam, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
P. Kothandam & Another – Respondent
C.M.A. No. 2180 of 2015
Decided on : 25-10-2021
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173, 2(28), 146, 41, 41(4), 2(34), (35) and 147 - Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 - Insurance Company - Compensation - Appellant Insurance Company has challenged impugned award questioning its liability to pay compensation on ground that under a contractors plant and machinery policy, they are not liable to pay compensation to first respondent/claimant as he is an employee of a contractor engaged by second respondent (insured) - They have also questioned their liability to pay compensation on ground that insured vehicle being a Fork lift, which is operated not in a public place and was operated inside a ship when first respondent/claimant sustained injuries – Held, Court does not find any fault in said assessment, after giving due consideration to nature of injuries sustained by first respondent/claimant which is grievous in nature for which he had to undergo long period of hospitalisation and had to regularly and continuously take medical treatment as seen from evidence available on record - Limitation of liability to extent of Rs.4,00,000/- pleaded by Appellant as per Insurance Policy is concerned, same cannot be accepted by this Court, in view of fact that having provided insurance coverage for Fork lift (insured vehicle) to cover third party claims and first respondent, being a third party, Appellant Insurance Company is statutorily liable to pay a compensation of Rs.7,69,600/-, even though it exceeds prescribed limit under insurance policy - There is a statutory liability casts upon Appellant Insurance Company to pay determined compensation amount as per section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act - Appellant Insurance company is directed to deposit amount awarded by Tribunal together with interest at rate of 7.5% per annum from date of claim till date of deposit - After deducting amount already deposited if any, to credit of MCOP. within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment - On such deposit being made, Tribunal shall transfer amount lying to credit of MCOP. to bank account of first respondent – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 14.10.2014 in MCOP.No.998 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II court of Small Causes), Chennai.)
1. This appeal has been filed challenging the award dated 14.10.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IInd Court of Small Causes, Chennai) in MCOP.No.998 of 2007.
2. The Appellant Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award questioning its liability to pay compensation on the ground that under a contractors plant and machinery policy, they are not liable to pay compensation to the first respondent/claimant as he is an employee of a contractor engaged by the second respondent (insured). They have also questioned their liability to pay compensation on the ground that the insured vehicle being a Fork lift, which is operated not in a public place and was operated inside a ship when the first respondent/claimant sustained injuries. It is also the contention of the Appellant insurance company that the maximum liability of the Appellant under the insurance policy is only Rs.4,00,000/-, but the Tribunal has erroneously awarded a huge compensation of Rs.7,69,600/-.
3. The Tribunal under the impugned award directed the Appellant Insurance Company to pay the first respondent/claimant a compensation of Rs.7,69,600/- for the injuries sustained by him as a result of an accident which happened on 09.04.2006 when the first respondent was doing the work of loading stone into the ship by name BSLE Energy Ship at JD-3, Chennai Harbour. According to the first respondent/claimant, due to the rash and negligent operation of the Fork lift by its driver belonging to the second respondent (insured), he sustained injuries which resulted in the motor accident claim in MCOP.No.998 of 2007.
4. The details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal are as follows:
| Heads | Award amount (Rs.) |
| Loss of income for 4 months | 28,000/- |
| Transportation | 10,000/- |
| Extra nourishment | 15,000/- |
| Damage to clothes | 1,000/- |
| Medical expenses | 15,000/- |
| Attender charges | 15,000/- |
| Loss of amenities of life | 35,000/- |
| Pain and suffering | 50,000/- |
| Loss of earning capacity | 6,00,600/- (7000 x 12 x 13 x 55%) |
| Total | 7,69,600/- |
5. Heard Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.V.G.Anbarasu, learned counsel for the first respondent. The second respondent has remained ex-parte both before the Tribunal as well as this Court.
6. The points for consideration in this appeal are (a) whether the motor accident claim for compensation can be instituted for an accident caused by a Fork lift; (b) whether the contractors Plant and Machinery Policy (Ex.R1) gives coverage for an accident victim who had sustained injuries in a ship when the Fork lift (insured vehicle) was allegedly operated by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and whether the ship can be termed as a public place to enable the first respondent/claimant to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act; and (c) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.
7. Before proceeding with the merits of the matter, it is an undisputed fact that during the pendency of this appeal, the first respondent was permitted to withdraw 50% of the award amount which was deposited by the Appellant Insurance Company before the Tribunal as seen from the order dated 25.09.2015 passed in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in CMA.No.2180 of 2015. As seen from the order dated 25.09.2015 no serious objection was raised by the Appellant insurance Company for the withdrawal of the said amount by the first respondent/claimant.
8. Learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant has also submitted before this Court that pursuant to the afore
SupremeToday
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
