JUDGMENT

This appeal has been directed against the Judgment and decree, dated 23.11.2020, passed in M.C.O.P.No.247 of 2015, on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi.

2.The facts in brief:

On 24.02.2015, the petitioner was riding his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 76 Q 8498 on the Courtallam – Tenkasi Main Road. When it was nearing the place of occurrence, the vehicle bearing registration No.TN 76 A 7880 was driven by the first respondent in rash and negligent manner and hit the petitioner. As a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries all over his body. He was taken to the Government Hospital, Tenkasi. Later to a private Hospital, underwent treatment there for 20 days. Claiming compensation amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-, the claimant application was filed on the ground that he was unable to continue his work as before. He was a flower merchant and earning Rs.15,000/- per month.

3.That was resisted by the respondents 1 and 2 in the main petition contending that the petitioner by his own negligence and rashness hit the second respondent's vehicle, which was driven by the first respondent. So it was the accident invited by the claimant himself. A case in Crime No. 78 of 2015 was registered under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC, on the basis of the complaint given by the first respondent in the main petition against the claimant.

4.The third respondent namely the United Insurance Company filed a counter contending that the petitioner drew his two wheeler without proper driving licence, fitness certificate and Registration Certificate, in a drunken mode and tried to overtake another vehicle going in front of him and invited the accident.

5.The fourth respondent namely IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company filed a counter stating that he is not a necessary party.

6.Regarding the negligence, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the claimant himself. Considering the coverage of personal accident coverage, Rs.50,000/- was awarded as compensation, taking note of the fact that he suffered 30% of partial permanent disability. That amount was directed to be paid by the fourth respondent namely the IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company, which is the insurer of the claimant. Against which, this appeal is preferred by the fourth appellant before the Tribunal.

7.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that personal accident coverage is available. But only 30% of partial permanent disability was suffered by the claimant. As per the medical record, he was under the influence of alcohol. So there is violation of policy condition and the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation amount to the claimant.

8.There is no cross appeal or appeal by the claimant over the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding the negligence. So that portion of the finding requires no reconsideration and it sustained.

9.Regarding the liability only the arguments was advanced by both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant would straight away draw the attention of this Court to the policy conditions, wherein, it is seen that Rs.50/- was paid towards personal accident coverage for owner/driver. The total amount mentioned is Rs.1,00,000/-. The condition Section 3 of the Policy reads as under.

“Section 3:- PERSONAL ACCIDENT COVER FOR OWNER-DRIVER Subject otherwise to the terms exceptions conditions and limitation of this policy. The company undertakes to pay compensation as per the following scale for bodily injury/death sustained by the owner-driver of the vehicle, in direct connection with the vehicle insured or whilst driving or mounting into/dismounting from the vehicle insured or whilst travelling in it as a co-driver, caused by violent accidental external and visible means which independent of any other cause shall within six calendar months of such injury result in;