A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Mr. Justice R. Vijayakumar rejected an Insurance Company’s claim that the claimant does not deserve the insurance amount since there was impersonation on his part claiming that he was not driving the vehicle at the time of the accident.
The Court rejected the contention on the basis that the Insurance Company did not raise this objection at the time of F.I.R/Chargesheet and thus, any different facts could not be accepted at a later stage.
Brief Facts:
The claimant is an injured person who had traveled in a vehicle by the side of the driver as a salesman of an oil store carrying goods. According to the claimant, the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver by name Manikumar and it got capsized. The claimant got injured in his left shoulder and left wrist and injuries in various parts of the body. The claimant had contended that he was drawing a salary of Rs.12,500/- per month and he prayed for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The owner of the vehicle namely the first respondent had remained exparte and the insurer had filed a counter contending that the said Manikumar was not on wheel at the time of accident. An individual named Sebastin was the driver at the time of accident who did not possess valid driving license. That apart, an F.I.R has been lodged after a delay of 22 days from the date of accident.
Therefore, the Insurance Company had contended that they are not liable to pay compensation as claimed by the petitioner. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, arrived at a finding that the accident had taken place on 18.09.2012 and the F.I.R has been registered on 10.10.2012. Though it is contended on the side of the Insurance Company that one Sebastin was on the wheel when the accident had happened, the Police Authorities had registered the F.I.R as against the Manikumar and he has also been charge-sheeted.
Thereafter, the said Manikumar has paid the fine in the Court. No proceedings have been initiated by the Insurance Company alleging that there was impersonation. The Tribunal further found that only the said Manikumar was the driver at the time of accident. Challenging the same and the quantum of compensation, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.
Contentions of the Appellant/Insurance Company:
The appellant contended that the vehicle was not driven by Manikumar at the time of accident. The vehicle was driven by one Sebastin who did not possess valid driving license. The owner of vehicle namely the first respondent in the claim petition had raised a claim for own damage before the Insurance Company. In the said claim petition, the owner has referred one Sebastin as the driver of the vehicle at the relevant point of time.
Therefore, according to the appellant the claimant and the owner of the vehicle have colluded together and they have changed the name of the driver of the vehicle who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.The learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that the owner of the vehicle had raised a claim for own damage with the Insurance Company indicating that one Sebastin is the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident.
However, after the delay of 22 days an F.I.R has been registered as if one Manikumar is the driver at the time of accident. Therefore, it is highly doubtful whether Sebastin or Manikumar is the driver of the vehicle. The said Sebastin was not having any valid license at the time of accident. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The respondents had contended that at the time of registering the F.I.R, the said Manikumar alone was shown as driver and a charge sheet has been laid by the Police as against the Manikumar. The officials of the insurance company have not raised an objection or lodged a complaint alleging that there was impersonation of the driver at the relevant point of time. Further it is contended by the claimant that the own damage claim was raised at the work shop. Therefore, it was signed by the first respondent herein. The contents of the own damage application cannot be taken into consideration.
Observations of the Court:
The court rejected the main defence of the Insurance Company that the commercial vehicle was not driven by Manikumar at the time of accident, but by one Sebastin who did not possess a valid driving license. The only document that was sought to be relied upon by the Insurance Company was the application for own damages alleged to have been raised by the owner of the vehicle for the same accident. A perusal of the said application revealed that it was an online application without the signature of the owner of the vehicle.
The court observed that it was more probable that it was raised by the service station to which the vehicle was taken for repair. According to the Insurance Company, the own damages claim petition was rejected on the ground that the driver namely Sebastin was not holding a proper driving license.
However, no document was placed before the Court. Therefore, it is clear to the court that the Insurance Company was not able to establish that one Sebastin was driving the vehicle at the relevant point in time. On the other hand, the F.I.R was lodged against one Manikumar and he was also charge sheeted by the Police.
Therefore, the primary contention of the Insurance Company that there was some impersonation was held to be not legally sustainable, especially in view of the fact that the Insurance Company has not laid any complaint alleging there was impersonation on the side of the owner of the vehicle in changing the driver at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the Court came to the conclusion that the vehicle was driven by Manikumar who was holding a valid driving license at the time of the accident.
Decision of the Court:
The court upheld the trial court’s judgment.
Case Title: M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mohan and anr.
Coram: MR. JUSTICE R. VIJAYAKUMAR
Case No.: C.M.A(MD)No.589 of 2019
Advocate for the Appellant: Mrs. K.R. Shivashankari
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. M. Suresh (For R1);Mr. AN. Ramanathan (For R2)
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
