The National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Tmt. Devi

R. Subbiah, J.—This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the finding rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Judge), Udumalpet, Coimbatore District, in and by award dated 07.04.2010 in M.C.O.P. No. 251 of 2006, in fixing the liability on the part of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants.

The respondents 1 to 3 herein are the claimants before the Tribunal and they are the wife, minor daughter and minor son of the deceased Jothiraj @ Chinnan. It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that on 17.03.2006 at about 5.15 pm, the said Jothiraj @ Chinnan, along with one Kittan, was travelling in a Eicher Van bearing Registration No. TN-57-J-2101, belonging to the 5th respondent and insured with the appellant/insurance Company, as loadman, to load Chenna (sic) for the commission agent namely Rangasamy of Poolankinar Village. At that time, the said vehicle was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the said vehicle dashed against a Tamarind Tree, which was standing by the right side of the road, and thus, got involved in the accident. In the said accident, the said Jothiraj @ Chinnan sustained grievous injures and he was taken to the hospital, where he died later. Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation as against the owner of the vehicle and its insurer/appellant herein.

The case of the claimants was resisted by the Insurance Company by taking a defence that Eicher Van is meant only to carry goods; but, the deceased Jothiraj @ Chinnan was permitted to travel in the goods carriage vehicle; hence, the owner of the vehicle committed breach of contract under the Insurance Policy and as such, there is a violation to the conditions of the policy. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount.

In order to prove their claim before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, wife of the deceased examined herself as P.W. 1, besides examining one Rengasamy as P.W. 2 and marked nine documents as Ex. P.1 to Ex. P.9. On the side of the Insurance Company, two witnesses were examined and four documents were marked.

The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence adduced on either side, has come to the conclusion that since the loadman was covered by the Insurance Policy, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount. Thus, the Tribunal has fixed the liability on the part of the Insurance Company. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

It is the main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that the vehicle involved in the accident is a goods carriage vehicle and no person is entitled to travel in the said vehicle. Since the deceased had travelled in the said vehicle as unauthorised passenger, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that in fact, the official from the Insurance Company had adduced evidence before the Tribunal to show that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount; but, inspite of the same, the Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount.

But, on a careful perusal of the materials available on record, I find that the Tribunal, by analysing Ex. R.1-Insurance Policy, has come to the conclusion that as per the conditions of the Insurance Policy, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount by indemnifying the owner of the vehicle, since separate premium was paid under the policy for loadman. By coming to such a conclusion, the Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount. Even according to the claimants, on the date of accident, the deceased Jothiraj @ Chinnan had travelled in the said vehicle only as a loadman to load the goods for the commission agent. Hence, the Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount, only based on the premium paid for the loadman. Absolutely, I do not find any infirmity in the said direction given by the Tribunal. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings rendered by the Tribunal, in fixing the liability on the part of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants.

For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed and the same dismissed accordingly. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs.

It is represented that the entire award amount has already been deposited by the Insurance Company and the 1st respondent/wife has also withdrawn 50% of her share amount. Hence, the 1st respondent is permitted to withdraw balance 50% of her share amount. The share amounts of the minors/respondents 2 & 3 are directed to be deposited in any one of the nationalised banks till they attain majority and the 1st respondent/their mother is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued thereon, once in three months.