The main legal point established is that the insurance company cannot avoid liability by postponing the commencement of a policy after receiving the premium, and the insurance agent cannot be held responsible for the accident.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to call for the records of the lower Court and consider the merits of the case and to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal in MCOP.No.218 of 2016 dated 02.06.2017.)

The present appeal has been filed by the insurance company agent of New India Assurance Company Limited challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thanjavur in MCOP.No.218 of 2016.

2. According to the claimants, when the deceased was attempting to cross the road at about 12.00 noon on 31.01.2016, a two wheeler which is owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased person. He succumbed to the injuries on 06.02.2016. The claimants have further contended that the deceased was aged 65 years and he was a coolie earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. The claimants have prayed for a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

3. The second respondent had filed a counter contending that the accident has happened only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased who had crossed the road negligently. They have further contended that the two wheeler was not insured with the respondent on the date of the accident and the driver was not having a valid driving licence. The accident has happened on 31.01.2016, but the policy for the vehicle was issued only with effect from 01.02.2016. Therefore, on the date of the accident, there was no insurance policy and hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation.

4. The third respondent who is the insurance agent had filed a counter contending that the premium received from the owner of the vehicle was credited to the account of the insurance company on 31.01.2016 itself. However, the company has chosen to issue a policy belatedly with effect from 01.02.2016. Therefore, the insurance company alone is liable and they have been unnecessarily made as parties to the claim petition.

5. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the accident has happened only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the two wheeler. The Tribunal had further arrived at a finding that the vehicle owner has paid the renewal premium amount to the insurance agent on 19.01.2016 and a receipt has also been issued under Exhibit R2. However, the insurance agent has credited the said amount to the insurance company only on 31.01.2016. The Tribunal further found that the third respondent (insurance agent) has to prove that there is a privity of contract between him and the insurance company. The Tribunal further found that the third respondent had failed to establish the fact that he has received the premium from the first respondent to renew the insurance policy. If there is any agreement between the insurance agent and the insurance company, the agent is entitled to file appropriate suit as against the insurance company to get the above said amount. On the said finding, the Tribunal mulcted the entire liability upon the insurance agent.

6. The Tribunal further found that the age of the deceased was 65 and fixed the notional income at Rs.6000/- per month and deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses. After applying the multiplier of 7, total loss of income of the deceased was arrived at Rs.3,78,000/-. A sum of Rs.25,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium to the first claimant, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards loss of estate, another sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards transport charges and a sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded to each one of the other claimants under the head of loss of love and affection. Totally, a sum of Rs.5,63,000/- was awarded with 7.5% interest. This award is under challenge by the insurance agent.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance agent had contended as follo