The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance policy coverage operates only from the date and time mentioned in the policy, and the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation if the accident occurred before the commencement of the insurance policy.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 05.01.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No. 188 of 2014 on the file of the MACT (Sub-Court) at Perundurai.)

1. The second respondent in M.C.O.P.No. 188 of 2014, which had been disposed of on 05.01.2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Perundurai, is the appellant herein, aggrieved by the Judgment directing compensation for death due to accident caused to be borne by the appellant herein/Insurance Company.

2. The husband of the first claimant / father of the second and third claimants / son of the fourth claimant, one Duraisamy was standing on the Southern side of the Perundurai to Bhavani Road at Perundurai Mahalakshmi Theatre Bus Stop along with his father Perumal on 12.02.2014 at around 8.30 p.m. At that time, the first respondent in the original petition/M.Ramesh had come riding a Honda Shine motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN -56 B-4509 in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed and had dashed against the aforementioned Duraisamy, who suffered serious head injuries and died on the spot itself. He was aged about 40 years and was doing agricultural work. Seeking compensation for the death of the said Duraisamy, the Claim Petition had been filed by his legal heirs / widow, children and mother.

3. The second respondent was stated to be the insurer of the aforementioned motorcycle. They contested the claim petition and in the counter, they had very specifically stated that the vehicle was not insured with them. They further stated that at the time of the accident, there was no policy in force. The policy relied on by the claimants was for the period from 15.02.2014 to 14.02.2015. The accident had occurred on 12.02.2014. Since there was no policy which covered or put the insurer in liability for any accident involving the vehicle, they abjured liability and contested the claim mulcted on them.

4. The trial on the issue was taken up by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Perundurai and Judgment was delivered on 05.01.2017.

5. During the course of trial, on the side of the claimants, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were examined. PW-1 was the first claimant / widow of the deceased Duraisamy, PW-2 was infact the agent who issued the policy for the vehicle and he deposed on summons being issued to him. On the side of the respondents, one witness RW-1 was examined. The copy of the policy was marked as Ex.P-1. The respondents marked a copy of an advocate notice dated 17.12.2015 and the acknowledgment card for the same.

6. In the course of the Judgment, the first issue which was framed was to fix the negligence for the accident and the second issue was to determine the compensation payable and the third issue was with respect to who should pay the compensation and the fourth issue was with respect to any other rights which could be granted to the claimants.

7. With respect to the first issue, the Tribunal had come to a conclusion that it was the rash and negligent manner, in which, the offending motor vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-56 B-4509 was driven, was responsible for the accident as it had been found as a fact that the deceased was standing near bus stop and the motor vehicle came, driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, causing serious injuries and he succumbed to such injuries and died on the spot itself.

8. After that, the Tribunal proceeded to determine the compensation which could be granted. Duraisamy, was aged 40 years at the time of his unfortunate death and was working as a coolie and was said to be earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. The Tribunal however determined that the notional monthly income can be determined at Rs.6,000/- and thereafter, deducted 1/4th from that amount and took into account a net monthly income of Rs.4,500/- and adopted a multiplier of 15' and arrived at a sum of Rs.8,10,000/- as loss of income. Thereafter further heads of compensation were gra