Madras High Court
M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Yasoda on 21 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.454 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.M.A.No.454 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Having its Branch Office at
City Branch – III,
1152/1153, Trichy Road,
Coimbatore.
Rep. by its, Branch Manager ..Appellant
Vs.
1. Yasoda
2. Vincent @ Alphons
3. J.Jahir Hussain
4. S.Sadhik Basha
5. R.Mohana Krishnan
6. L.Sathish
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.454 of 2014
7. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Having its Branch Office at
Kumaran Illam, Green Fields
Ooty – 643 001.
(Respondents 3 to 6 are
Set exparte in Lower Court) ...Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated
28.01.2013 in M.C.O.P.No.756 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, First Additional District Judge, Erode.
For Appellant :: Mrs.R.Sreevidhya
For Respondent :: Not ready in notice – R1 to R6
Mr.K.Padmanabhan for R7
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been laid as against the judgment and decree dated
28.01.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.756 of 2005 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, First Additional District Judge, Erode, thereby
awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to
hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.454 of 2014
3. The case of the claimant is that the deceased was travelling in
a goods vehicle from Coonoor to Mettupalayam. Between 8th and 9th hairpin
bends, near a milestone, which indicated as 76 Km., to Gudalur, the driver
of the said van had driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the lorry coming in the opposite direction, which was driven by the
fourth respondent insured with the sixth respondent. Due to the said
accident, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries and immediately
he was taken to Government Hospital, Conoor wherein after getting first aid
and he was shifted to Coimbatore Government Hospital. He was treated as
inpatient for 21 days and again shifted to Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore and
then he was admitted to Samuel Hospital, Coonoor. But the injured
succumbed to the injuries on 02.02.2005. Hence, the claim petition.
4. Resisting the claim, the third respondent filed counter
stating that the deceased had travelled as a passenger in a goods carrying
vehicle. The permit issued to the van does not permit passengers to be
carried in the van. Therefore, in violation of permit and policy conditions,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.454 of 2014
the deceased and others were carried as passengers in the van. The vehicle
owned by the second respondent committed the violation of permit and
policy condition and the third respondent is not liable to pay compensation
as claimed by the claimant.
5. On the side of the claimants, they examined P.W.1 and P.W.5
and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16. On the side of the third respondent no one
was examined as their witness and only Ex.R.1 was marked. On the basis
of the evidence available on record and also considering the submission
made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Tribunal fastened
the liability on the third respondent and awarded a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as
compensation at the rate of 7.5% interest per annum. Aggrieved by the
same, the third respondent/Insurance Company has come forward with the
present appeal questioning the liability.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that the deceased was a non-fare paying passenger and travelled along with
other passengers in the goods vehicle owned by the second respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.454 of 2014
which was insured with the third respondent. Therefore, the third
respondent is not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the
claimants. That apart, though the Tribunal awarded compensation payable
by the third respondent, in the decree stated that the claim petition was
dismissed as against respondents 3 to 6. The learned counsel submitted that
there is a clear violation of policy conditions and argued that the claimants
are not entitled for any compensation.
7. Heard Mrs.R.Sreevidhya, learned counsel appearing for the
Insurance Company/appellant and Mr.K.Padmanabhan, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company.
8. The claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased. The deceased
travelled in a goods van on 20.01.2005 and met with an accident because of
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van owned by the second
respondent insured with the third respondent. On the complaint lodged by
the opposite vehicle, the FIR was registered as against the driver of the van
in which the deceased had travelled and he was also charge sheeted. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.454 of 2014
only point raised by the third respondent is that the deceased had travelled
in a goods vehicle and as such, the second respondent violated the policy
condition by allowing passengers to travel in a goods vehicle.
9. A perusal of the Insurance policy issued by the third respondent
reveals that a sum of Rs.75,000/- was paid towards non-fare paying
passengers for 1%. Except the legal heirs of the deceased who are the
claimants, no one has claimed under the head of non-fare paying passengers
in the goods vehicle. Therefore, the policy covers the deceased to travel as a
non-fare paying passengers and as such the third respondent is liable to pay
compensation. The Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation and this
Court finds no merits in this case.
10. It is seen that, in the judgment though the Court below directed
the third and sixth respondents in the claim petition viz., the appellant and
the seventh respondent herein to deposit the award amount and in the last
paragraph of the decree, it is mentioned as “the claim petition is dismissed
as against the respondents 3 to 6”. It is also seen that the respondents 1, 2, 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.454 of 2014
& 5 in the claim petition viz., the respondents 3 to 6 herein are set exparte.
Therefore, it is made clear that the third respondent viz., the appellant herein
alone is liable to pay compensation and the claim petition is dismissed as
against sixth respondent viz., the seventh respondent herein.
11. Accordingly, the appellant/Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the total compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- with accrued interest and
costs as determined at by the Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after adjusting the amount, if any,
already deposited. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 2/claimants are
permitted to withdraw in accordance with law, less the amount if any
already withdrawn by them.
12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
21.04.2021
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non Speaking order
dh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.454 of 2014
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN., J.
dh
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
First Additional District Judge, Erode.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras.
C.M.A.No.454 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
21.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
