National Insurance Company Limited vs C.Nagarajan & Anr

Since these four Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of a common award, dated 27.02.2007 made in M.C.O.P.Nos..421, 715, 423 and 424 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirappalli, they are taken up together for final disposal.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to according to their litigative status before the Tribunal.

This is a case of injury sustained in an accident that took place on 09.09.2000 at about 20.30 hours, while the injured claimants travelled in a mini lorry, bearing Registration No. TN-47-C-1989, belonged to the first respondent with goods proceeding on Trichy to Manaparai road near Angalaparameswari Temple, in Chathrapatti, the driver of the first respondent''s vehicle drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against a parked vehicle with proper signal. The accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. On the said impact, the injured claimants sustained multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately the injured claimants were taken to Seahorse Hospital at Trichy and admitted as inpatients till 13.09.2000. Even after discharge from the hospital, the claimants were taking treatment continuously and the police had registered the case against the driver of the insured mini lorry.

For the injuries sustained, the claimants have filed in M.C.O.P.Nos.421, 423, 424 and 715 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirappalli. In all the petitions the second respondent Insurance Company denied the averments made in the claim petitions.

Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.19 were marked. On the side of the second respondent R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R.1 to R.4 were marked.

The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and arguments of the learned counsel for the claimants, held that the Insurance Company has not chosen to examine the driver of the offending vehicle and there was no contra evidence let in on the second respondent the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent and direct the second respondent to pay the amount to the petitioners / claimants and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

The learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, submitted that injured claimants travelled as gratuitous/unauthorised passengers in the goods vehicle are not covered or permitted as per the terms and conditions of the policy. In other words the policy of insurance has been violated by the insured in taking gratuitous passengers in the goods vehicle. Therefore passing the said award as against this appellant is not proper, correct and legally sustainable. Since as per the terms and conditions of the concerned policy of insurance, this appellant Insurance Company has no liability to cover gratuitous passengers travelling in a goods vehicle, the Tribunal should not have awarded compensation as against this appellants as laid down by the Apex Court. Hence, it is the duty of the owner to pay additional premium for the load men. But in this case no additional premium was paid for the load men by the owner of the vehicle. Hence, it amounts to violation of the policy conditions and hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and prays to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants argued that the claimants travelled in the offending vehicle only as load men and there is Insurance coverage for load men and hence there is no violation of policy conditions. Therefore, the Insurance Company alone is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

It is admitted that on perusal of the Ex.P.1 FIR, it is stated that the claimants were travelling in the goods vehicle as a load men to carry Sridhana articles. On careful perusal of the records and evidence recorded, it reveals that the claimants travelled in the offending vehicle only as a load men. Hence, it is the bounden duty of the owner of the offending vehicle to pay additional premium for the Insurance coverage of the load men, who were travelling in the goods vehicle. But no document has been filed, on the side of the claimants to prove that the additional premium was paid by the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, it is held that no additional premium was paid for the load men, who were travelling in the goods vehicle at the time of accident. Since, the said claimants travelled in the goods vehicle as load men, when no additional premium was paid for load men, it amounts to violation of policy conditions. In cases of violation of policy conditions, the Court can direct the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimants at the first instance and recover it from the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, this Court directs the Insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

Compensation awarded by the Tribunal as follows: (i) In M.C.O.P.No. 421 of 2001 (C.M.A.(MD)No.1126 of 2007) the compensation of Rs.7,000/- was awarded towards injuries sustained and Rs.4,375/- was awarded towards medical expenses, in toto the Tribunal awarded Rs.11,375/- towards compensation.

(ii) In M.C.O.P.No. 715 of 2001 (C.M.A.(MD)No.1127 of 2007) the compensation of Rs.38,000/- was awarded towards permanent disability and Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards pain and sufferings and Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards mental agony and Rs. 53,135/- was awarded towards medical expenses and Rs. 3,000/- was awarded towards Transport and Rs.3,000/- was awarded towards nutrition and Rs.2,000/- was awarded towards loss of income for treatment periods in toto the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,19,135/- towards compensation.

(iii) In M.C.O.P.No. 423 of 2001 (C.M.A.(MD)No.1128 of 2007) the compensation of Rs.39,000/- was awarded towards permanent disability and Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards pain and sufferings and Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards mental agony and Rs.4,970/- was awarded towards medical expenses and Rs.3,000/- was awarded towards Transport and Rs.3,000/- was awarded towards nutrition and Rs.2,000/- was awarded towards loss of income for treatment periods in toto the Tribunal awarded Rs.71,970 /- towards compensation.

(iv) In M.C.O.P.No. 424 of 2001 (C.M.A.(MD)No.1129 of 2007) the compensation of Rs.42,000/- was awarded towards permanent disability and Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards pain and sufferings and Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards mental agony and Rs.6,190/- was awarded towards medical expenses and Rs.3,000/- was awarded towards Transport and Rs.3,000/- was awarded towards nutrition and Rs.2,000/- was awarded towards loss of income for treatment periods in toto the Tribunal awarded Rs.76,190/- towards compensation.

On careful perusal of the records it reveals that the awards passed by the Tribunal are not excessive and they are reasonable. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P. Nos.421, 715, 423, and of 2001, needs no interference of this Court.

In the result, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. The award passed in M.C.O.P. Nos.421, 715 ,423, and of 2001 are confirmed. The compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petitions, till date of deposit. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interests and costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already deposited and on such deposit being made and the claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective award amount, with accrued interests and costs without filing any formal petition before the Tribunal and Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the award amount from the owner of the vehicle by filing appropriate proceedings before the Executing Court. No Costs.