Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 530
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. THARANI, J.
Iffco Tokyo General Insurance, Company Ltd., Rep. By Branch Manager, Madurai - Appellant
Versus
Boothathan & Another - Respondents
C.M.A. (MD)No. 449 of 2017
Decided On : 27-03-2023
For the Appellant:S. Srinivasa Raghavan, Advocate. For the Respondent: R1, S, Siva Subramanian, R2, No Appearance.
Liability of the insurance company and responsibility for the accident were the central legal points established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - 173 - 7.5% - [MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, Section 173] - The court awarded compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and directed the appellant to deposit the awarded amount with 7.5% interest from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a claim petition seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation, which the appellant appealed against, arguing that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation and that the quantum of the award was excessive.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the driver of the JCB vehicle was responsible for the accident and that the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation. The court also directed the appellant to deposit the awarded amount with 7.5% interest.
Issues: Liability of the insurance company, validity of the insurance policy, quantum of compensation, and responsibility for the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation as the policy was effective and not disputed by the appellant. The court also found the driver of the JCB vehicle responsible for the accident due to lack of a valid driving license.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to deposit the awarded amount with 7.5% interest. The 1st respondent was entitled to the compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 19.12.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No.373 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Tirunelveli.)
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.373 of 2012 dated 19.12.2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli.
2. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the first respondent herein is the petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein is the 1st respondent in the claim petition. The first respondent herein has filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.373 of 2012, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant, in an accident that took place on 13.07.2012. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 11,39,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs and Thirty Nine Thousand only) as compensation. Against which, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. A brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.373 of 2012 is as follows:
On 13.07.2012, at about 11.15 a.m., when the petitioner was riding the two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-74-Z-7443 along with Raja Gopal as pillion rider, a JCB vehicle bearing registration No.TN-76-M-4915 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. The petitioner sustained injuries. He was given first aid in Tirunelveli Government Hospital and then he was admitted in Sri Sakthi hospital and he took treatment as ''inpatient'' from 13.07.2012 till 29.08.2012. He has undergone surgeries on 13.07.2012, 15.07.2012 and on 23.07.2012. Implants were affixed. The age of the petitioner at the time of the accident was 23 years. The petitioner was working as the loadman and he was earning Rs.500/- per day. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) as compensation.
4. Brief substance of the counter filed by the respondents therein is as follows:
The age, income, profession and nature of injuries are all denied. The amount claimed is excessive. The manner of the accident was wrongly narrated in the petition. It was the motorcycle, which tried to overtake the other vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner. On seeing the same, the driver of the JCB stopped the vehicle and even then the motorcycle dashed against the JCB vehicle. The driver of the JCB was having only licence to drive the LMV vehicles. There is no endorsement in the licence permitting him to drive the JCB vehicle. The second respondent is not liable to pay compensation.
5. On the side of the claimant, 2 witnesses were examined and eight documents were marked. On the side of the respondents therein, two witnesses were examined and three documents were marked. After trial, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.11,39,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs and Thirty Nine Thousand only) as compensation to be paid by the respondents therein. Against which, the appellant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on the following grounds:
The policy does not cover the victim. The insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. The terms of the policy was violated. JCB is a special kind of vehicle, for which special policy of insurance is to be issued. The coverage for third party is not automatic. The coverage is governed by the terms and conditions of insurance policy. The quantum of award is excessive. There was no functional disability to the injured claimant and the application of multiplier formula is wrong.
6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that JCB is a special vehicle and special endorsement to that effect is to be obtained in the driving licence of the driver. The driver of the JCB has no valid driving licence. R.W.1 is the driver of the JCB vehicle. R.W.2 is the official from the RTO office. A letter from the RTO and MV reports were marked as Ex.R1 and Ex.R3. R.W
