The Divisional Manager v. Tmt.Amirtham
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 24.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR CMA.No.1242 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Motor third party claims office, No.60, 70 Sheikpet Nadu Street, Kancheepuram, 631 501.
... Appellant/2nd respondent Vs.
1. Amirtham ... first respondent/ 3rd Petitioner
2. V. Jayakanthan ... second respondent/ first respondent This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment dated 12.04.2012 passed in MCOP No.251 of 2007 by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chengalpattu.
For Appellant : Mr. J.Chandran For respondents : No appearance for R1 Notice served to R2.
J U D G M E N T
Aggrieved over the award passed by the Tribunal, the insurance company has filed the present appeal challenging the liability.
2. The claimant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a road accident that took place on 04.04.2005.
3. The brief case of the claimants is as follows: The claimant was a vegetable vendor and on 04.04.2005 at about 8.00 hours, the claimant was travelling in a tempo van bearing
registration No.TN-22-C-1356 from her Village to Koyambedu along with the other vegetable vendors and while nearing Andal-Azhagar Engineering College at Mamandur Village, the driver of the tempo van drove the vehicle rashly and negligently, thereby the front tyre of the tempo van busted and due to the impact, the petitioner and other vendors sustained multiple injuries and immediately, the petitioner was admitted to Government Hospital, Chengalpattu and was treated as inpatient from 04.04.2005 to 07.04.2005 and then taking treatment in Government Hospital as well in the Private Hospital. According to the claimant, the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tempo van was the cause of accident and since the first respondent insured his vehicle with the second respondent/ insurance company, both of them are liable to pay compensation.
4. The claim petition was resisted by the Insurance company by filing counter affidavit.
5. Before Tribunal, three claim petitions in MCOP No.247, 250, and 251 of 2007 were filed by three persons, who sustained injuries in the same accident that took place on 04.04.2005 and on the side of the claimants, three witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW3 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked and on the side of the respondents, one witness was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 were marked. As far as the claimant in the instant case is concerned, she filed MCOP No.251 of 2007 and she was examined as PW3 and Ex.P5 to Ex.P8 were marked.
6. After analysing the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.24,000/- as compensation to the claimant under various heads as extracted hereunder. Sl No Heads Amount in Rs.
Loss of earning 3000x3 9,000 Transportation charges 2,000 Extra Nourishment 1,000 Pain and sufferings 12,000 Total 24,000 Aggrieved over the Award passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal has been fled by the insurance company.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the claimant and I have perused the materials on record.
8.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company submitted that the on the date of accident, numerous persons were travelled in the tempo goods van and hence, they are the gratuitous passengers, which is the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy as well as the conditions of Permit and Registration Certificate and therefore the Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the gratuitous passengers and hence, the orders passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
9. Now the point for consideration is whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
10. Point The only contention of the appellant/ insurance company is that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation, since, on the date of accident, numerous persons were travelled in the tempo van as gratuitous passengers and hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal in its findings has discussed that " as per the insurance policy, premium has been paid for 5 vendors , however, only 4 persons have filed petition for compensation and hence, the contention of the insurance company that the claimants are not entitled for compensation is unsustainable ". To disprove the above findings, the insurance company has not filed any materials before this court. Therefore, the above findings of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference by this court. The appellant has not raised any ground against the quantum of compensation. Accordingly, the appeal fails. The point is answered accordingly.
11. In the result, (i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. The connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. (ii) The appellant/insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation of Rs.24,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5.% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, less the amount if already deposited, within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii) On such deposit being made by the insurance company, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same, after following due process of law.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar mst To
1. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu.
2. Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madras High Court, Chennai - 104.
+1CC to Mr.J.Chandran, Advocate, SR.No. 11469 CMA. No.1242 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 GMR(CO) B.VC (21/09/2021)