The Divisional Manager vs Bhuvaneshwari and V. Vel Murugan

C.S. Karnan, J.—The claimant stated that on 20.01.2005, when she was travelling in the respondent''s vehicle bearing Registration No. PY-

01-Z-0292, on the Thenambakkam Main road, at about 2.45 p.m., the driver of the vehicle had driven it at a high speed and in a negligent manner

and as a result, the vehicle overturned. As a result, the claimant sustained injuries. Hence, she has filed the claim against the owner and insurance

company. The Insurance Company had filed a counter and resisted the claim petition. The respondent denied that the accident had occurred on

20.01.2005 at about 2.45 p.m. Further, the claimant had travelled as an unauthorised passenger and therefore the policy condition had been

violated. The driver of the 1st respondent did not possess a valid driving licence. The respondent denied the averments in the claim regarding

occupation, income, nature of injuries and mode of treatment.

On considering the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues namely (1) Whether the driver of the 1st respondent had

driven the Minidoor van bearing Registration No. PY-01-Z-0292 in a rash and negligent manner? and (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to

receive compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?

On the side of the claimant, two witnesses were examined and 10 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P10 namely Ex. P1-F.I.R; Ex. P2-

Motor Vehicle Inspector''s report; Ex. P3-Medical discharge summary; Ex. P4-R.C. Book; Ex. P5-Insurance policy; Ex. P6-Driving licence; Ex.

P7-Doctor''s medical prescriptions; Ex. P8-Ration card; Ex. P9-X-ray; and Ex. P10-Disability Certificate. On the side of the respondents,

Insurance Company official was examined and two documents were marked namely Policy copy and R.C. Book.

PW 1 had adduced evidence that on 20.01.2005, at about 2.45 p.m., when she was travelling in the 1st respondent''s Minidoor van bearing

Registration No. PY-01-Z-0292, on the Thenambakkam Main road, the driver of the van drove it in a rash and negligent manner and at a high

speed due to which the vehicle overturned. PW 1 further stated that she had sustained injuries on her right hand, left shoulder, chest, right leg and

she had received first aid treatment at Karikalambakkam Government Hospital and thereafter she had been hospitalised at Government Hospital,

Pondicherry for a period of two months.

PW 2 Doctor had adduced evidence that the claimant had sustained 40% disability and she spoke on the same lines of PW 1 regarding nature

of injuries and mode of treatment. RW 1 had adduced evidence that the vehicle is a goods vehicle and that 15 persons had travelled in it and as

such the policy conditions of insurance had been violated.

On recording the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by the claimants, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.

46,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Against the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal.

The highly competent counsel argued that the offending vehicle is a Minidoor vehicle in which about 15 persons had travelled including the

petitioner. Therefore, the policy conditions have been breached. Therefore, the Tribunal had fastened the liability in an erroneous manner against

the Insurance Company.

The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the van and the van had been insured with

the Insurance Company. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. The claimant had sustained multiple bone fracture

injuries and she has been hospitalised for about two months as an inpatient. The Doctor had assessed the disability at 40%. The Tribunal had not

granted adequate compensation since the claim has been established against the owner and insurer of the vehicle.

On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the

impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum

of compensation. This Court is of the further view that the F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the vehicle and the vehicle had been

insured with the Insurance Company and the Doctor had assessed the disability at 40%. Therefore, the impugned award is confirmed as the

Tribunal had decided the same in an appropriate manner. However, it is evident that the claimant had travelled as a gratuitous passenger in the

Minidoor goods vehicle. Therefore, this Court permits the appellant herein to recover the award amount, with interest from the owner of vehicle

after depositing the entire compensation amount, with interest, before the trial Court, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this

order, subject to deduction of earlier deposits made, if any.

After such a deposit having been made, it is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon,

lying in the credit of M.C.O.P. No. 14 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Cuddalore),

after filing a memo., along with a copy of this order. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award passed in M.C.O.P.

No. 14 of 2006, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Cuddalore), dated 20.03.2007, is confirmed.

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.