Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 101530
MADRAS HIGH COURT
THE BRANCH MANAGER – Appellant
Versus
DHAKSHINAMOORTHY – Respondent
CMA 4141 2019
The liability of an Insurance Company under a Liability Only Policy is not restricted to one under the Workmen's Compensation Act but should be more or unlimited, if any extra premium is paid in the policy for coverage under IMT.39, which extends the insurer's liability to include legal liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act or at Common Law in respect of personal injury to any paid driver or cleaner.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - EMPLOYEE OF OWNER OF VEHICLE - LIABILITY ONLY POLICY - WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT - COMMON LAW - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY NOT RESTRICTED TO WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT - UNLIMITED LIABILITY
Fact of the Case:
The first respondent, an employee of the second respondent, was injured when he fell from a lorry owned by the second respondent and insured with the appellant. The first respondent filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.50 Lakhs. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.19,59,050/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit and costs and directed the appellant Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the policy in question was a Liability Only Policy and that the second respondent had paid extra premium for coverage under IMT.39, which extended the insurer's liability to include legal liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act or at Common Law in respect of personal injury to any paid driver or cleaner. The court further held that the liability of the Insurance Company was not restricted to one under the Workmen's Compensation Act but should be more or unlimited.
Issues: Whether the appellant Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the first respondent, who is an employee of the second respondent and was injured in an accident involving a lorry owned by the second respondent and insured with the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2013) 12 SCC 84 [Ramachandra Vs. Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited], which held that if any extra premium is paid in the policy the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation in respect of death or bodily injury and liability of the Insurance Company should not be restricted to one under Workmen Compensation Act but should be more or unlimited.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
C.M.A.No.4141 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.M.A.No.4141 of 2019
And
C.M.P.No.23402 of 2019
The Branch Manager
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
28, Meenakshi Complex, Mailam Road,
Tindivanam.
... Appellant
Vs.
1.Dhakshinamoorthy
2.Sathishkumar
... Respondents
Prayer:
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 14.02.2017
made in M.C.O.P.No.91 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, (Principal Sub Court), Tindivanam.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Bhaskaran
For Respondents : Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef for R1
R2 – NRN
J U D G M E N T
The second respondent Insurance Company before the Motor
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.4141 of 2019
Accidents Claims Tribunal is the appellant herein. This appeal has
been filed against the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2017 passed
by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Court),
Tindivanam, in M.C.O.P.No.91 of 2014.
2.The brief facts of the case is that on 12.01.2014, at about
17.00 hours, the first respondent travelled as a Cleaner in the lorry
owned by the second respondent and insured with the appellant and
when the vehicle was nearing Sokkanthangal Erikarai near burial way,
the driver of the vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner and in a zig zag manner, due to which, the first respondent
fell down from the lorry and sustained injuries.
3.Thereafter, the injured claimant/ first respondent filed claim
petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, claiming
compensation of Rs.50 Lakhs. After adjudication, the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.19,59,050/- with interest at the
rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit and
costs and directed the appellant Insurance Company to deposit the
compensation amount.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant
Insurance Company has filed this appeal.
2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.4141 of 2019
4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that the appellant has filed this appeal questioning the liability. The
learned counsel further submitted that the first respondent is not a
third party in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and he is
an employee of the second respondent. Due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, the first respondent
sustained injuries. The first respondent himself is a tort feasor and
on his own negligence, the first respondent fell down from the lorry
and sustained injuries. Unless the first respondent establish that due
to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle insured
with the appellant, the accident occurred, the appellant is not liable
to pay compensation to the first respondent. The learned counsel
further submitted that the remedy available to the first respondent
claimant is to approach the Workmen Compensation Court.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further
submitted that the policy is an Act I policy, in which, only third party
alone is entitled to claim compensation as against the Insurance
Company. The first respondent is an employee of the second
respondent and is not a third party. Hence, the claim petition filed
3/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.4141 of 2019
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not sustainable one.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further
submitted that the very same issue was considered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the decision reported in (2005) 6 SCC 172 [National
Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Prembai Patel and others], wherein, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that 'if the legal representatives of the
deceased employee approach the Motor Accident Cla
