Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 93
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. KALYANASUNDARAM, V. SIVAGNANAM, JJ.
M/s. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Arni - Appellant
Versus
D. Kumari & Others - Respondent
C.M.A. Nos. 2715 to 2718 of 2017 & C.M.P. Nos. 15235, 15237, 15239 & 15241 of 2017
Decided On : 05-01-2022
For the Appellant :B. Raghavan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:K.G. Senthilkumar, S. Dhakshanamoorthy, Advocates.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Section 173, 140 - Respondent/New India Assurance Company Ltd., and appellant/United India Insurance Company Ltd., filed counter disputing manner of accident, age, avocation and income of deceased and nature of injuries sustained by claimants and its liability to pay compensation - It has been stated that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of car, claimant being tortfeasor, they cannot seek to gain for their own wrong - Appellant/United India Insurance Company would submit that, three vehicles were involved - Tribunal, without appreciating evidence adduced by parties, concluded that driver of car was responsible for accident and insurer of said car, appellant, is liable to pay compensation – Held, claimant is owner of vehicle, who was travelled in vehicle at time of accident - When a workman engages as a driver to drive, he is entitled to claim under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act - Owner is only entitled to personal coverage - As per policy, personal coverage is Rs.2,00,000/-, , owner of car is entitled to personal coverage amount of Rs.2,00,000/- alone - In this regard, Tribunal’s conclusion was not based on law - Therefore, claimant is entitled to get amount of compensation of personal coverage along with interest - With regard to quantum, appellant Insurance Company has not disputed - Since driver of car met with an accident and suffered injuries during course of his employment, he is entitled to claim compensation under Workmen Compensation Act - Insurer has statutory duty to cover liability of owner of vehicle to settle compensation - Award in favour of claimants by Tribunal is legally sustainable and they are confirmed - Rate of interest fixed by Tribunal as 7.5% per annum is also confirmed – Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
V. Sivagnanam, J.
Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the Common Judgment and Decree in MCOP Nos.250, 251, 252 and 371 of 2001 respectively dated 01.08.2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Cheyyar.
1. These appeals arise out of the common award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Cheyyar in MCOP Nos.250, 251, 252 and 371 of 2001 respectively dated 01.08.2013.
2. The case of the claimants is that on 28.03.2001 at 07.45 hours, the claimant in MCOP No.371 of 2001, Mani drove a car bearing Reg.No.TN-25-Y-9999 on M.B.T road, Sumaithangi Erikarai near Pagaveli Koot Road. In the said Car, D.Kumari, who is the owner of the car and the claimant in MCOP No.251 of 2001, R.Venkatesan, who is the claimant in MCOP No.252 of 2001, and one Saraswathiammal, who is the deceased in MCOP No.250 of 2001, were travelled. At that time, an Eicher Cantrer Van bearing Reg.No.TN-39-Q-6117 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the car and then dashed against another Tanker Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-45-E-0907. In the accident, the driver Mani, owner D.Kumari and R.Venkatesan sustained injuries and the said Saraswathiammal died. Alleging that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van, the injured and the legal heirs of the deceased Saraswathiammal laid petitions claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-, Rs.25,00,000/-, Rs.2,09,67,000/- and Rs.25,00,000/- respectively.
3. Resisting the claim, the respondent/New India Assurance Company Ltd., and the appellant/United India Insurance Company Ltd., filed their respective counter disputing the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased and the nature of injuries sustained by the claimants and its liability to pay the compensation. It was also contended that the claim is excessive. Further, in the counter, it has been stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car, hence, the claimant Mani being tortfeasor, they cannot seek to gain for their own wrong.
4. To substantiate the case, on the side of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.49 were marked. On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company, R.W.1 to R.W.5 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.15 were marked.
5. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence held that the driver of the car, belonging to the claimant Kumari/Mani was responsible for the accident and awarded compensation as follows:-
| Claimant in MCOP No.371 of 2001 | Rs.1,83,360/- |
| Claimants in MCOP No.250 of 2001 | Rs.5,20,000/- |
| Claimant in MCOP No.251 of 2001 | Rs.20,44,000/- |
| Claimant in MCOP No.252 of 2001 | Rs.3,41,580/- |
Assailing the common award, the appellant/United India Insurance Company has filed these appeals.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/United India Insurance Company, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants and perused the materials available on record.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/United India Insurance Company would submit that in this case, three vehicles were involved. The Tribunal, without appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, concluded that the driver of the car was responsible for the accident and the insurer of the said car, namely, the appellant herein, is liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal failed to consider the First Information Report which was registered based on the complaint by the claimant/Venkatesan (Ex.R2) and the subsequent final report filed by the police. The claimants, who were travelled in the car, deposed before the Tribunal alleging the negligence entirely upon the van driver. B
