The main legal point established is that the insurance company is liable to compensate the claimants if the deceased had paid a separate premium for personal accident cover, but the liability is limited to the specified amount in the policy.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to allow this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 24.01.2013 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1336 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri.)

1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the insurance company, the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.1346 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, aggrieved by the award dated 24.01.2013.

2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder:

The respondents 1 to 4 as claimants filed M.C.O.P.No.1336 of 2010 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of the Venkatesappa @ Venkatesh, husband, father and son respectively of the claimants. It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that the deceased was driving the vehicle bearing registration No. TN-01-R-5870, taking with him his family members and that at about 11.50 hrs, on 18.03.2010, a cyclist suddenly crossed and in order to avoid a collision the deceased applied sudden brake, the vehicle capsized and the deceased sustained fatal injuries and he did not survive, though he was taken to the Government Hospital at Denkanikotta and subsequently to NIMHANS, Bangalore and Sparsh, Bangalore.

3. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was carrying on business in vegetables and was earning about Rs.4,000/- per month and that he was aged 40 years at the time of demise. The deceased was the bread winner of the family and therefore the claimants sought for a consolidated sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation.

4. The 2nd respondent insurance company, the appellant herein filed a counter denying the averments and the allegations made by the claimants in the MCOP petition. The main defence taken by the appellant before the Tribunal was that the deceased was the driver and also the owner of the vehicle and being the tort-feasor, he cannot claim compensation and ultimately sought for dismissal of the claim petition itself.

5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Mr.Munichandra was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the claimants. On the side of the respondents, one Mr.Thambidurai was examined as R.W.1 and Mr.M.Ravi was examined as R.W.2 and exhibits R1 and R2 were marked on the side of the respondents.

6. The Tribunal, taking note of the evidence of R.W.2, held that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation for the death of Venkatesappa @ Venkatesh. Further, the Tribunal proceeded to fix a sum of Rs.3,300/- as the monthly income of the deceased and adopted a multiplier of 15 taking his age as 40 and added compensation under other heads and arrived at a total compensation of Rs.4,51,898/- to be paid by the respondents, together with interest at 7.5% per annum.

7. Heard Mr.S.Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company and Mr.Mukund R.Pandiyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.

8. The only argument put forth by the counsel for the appellant is that the deceased was the owner of the vehicle that capsized and he was also driving the vehicle and consequently U/s. 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, being the tort-feasor, the insurance company cannot be called upon to compensate the claimants. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Khiladi and another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and another, reported in 2020 ACJ 627, to support his argument with regard to liability of the insurance company when a third party was not involved and being an “act only” policy the accident cannot be said to be covered under the policy and no liability can be fastened on the insurance company.

9. The counsel for the respondents 1 to 4, however, on