Madras High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Boopalan on 3 February, 2021
1 CMA No.973 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
C.M.A.No.973 of 2017
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager having
office at First floor,
Gopal Rao Library Building,
Town Hall Road,
Kumbakonam. ...Appellant
Vs
1.Boopalan
2. Rubilan
3.Chandrika
4.Kadiravan
5.Vikram
(Minors 4 and 5 rep. by
their respondent brother/next friend first respondent)
...Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2016 made
in M.C.O.P.No.174 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, District Judge, Karaikal District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2 CMA No.973 of 2017
For Appellant : Mr.J.Chandran
For Respondents : Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel
for the respondents.
2. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company assailing the award
of the Tribunal on the short point that the claimants are the legal heirs of the
deceased owner cum driver of the vehicle insured under them. The Tribunal
erred in awarding a sum of Rs.6,84,000/-, while the terms of the contract
under the Insurance policy is restricted to the limited liability of
Rs.1,00,000/- for the owner cum driver under personal accident cover.
3. To verify whether the contention raised in the appeal is correct, the
insurance policy marked as Ex.P3 was perused. On perusal, this Court
found that the second and third page of insurance policy not filed. Learned
counsel for the appellant was asked to produce the second and third page of
the Insurance policy. The same was produced today.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4. On perusing the Insurance policy, this Court finds that the New
motor cycle TVS XL Super HD with Engine No.0D1NC1540719 and
Chasis No. MD621BD11C1N46835 owned by one Rajendran was insured
under the appellant Company on 12.11.2012. It is a package policy wherein
a sum of Rs.933/- has been collected, which includes Rs.50/- for P.A cover.
As per the terms of the contract, the owner cum driver is entitled for claim
upto Rs.1,00,000/- in this P.A cover. As per the F.I.R and the evidence
placed before this Court, Rajendran, who is the owner cum rider of the said
TVS 50 had met with an accident on 19.08.2013, when he fell down while
he was passing through a speed breaker. It is his own negligence, which has
caused the accident. No other vehicle is involved in the accident. As owner
cum driver, the legal representatives of the deceased Rajendran are entitled
for the limited liability assured by the Insurance Company under the policy
i.e., Rs.one lakh, in case of death. The Tribunal has failed to consider this
and has awarded Rs.6,84,000/- as if it is a third party claim. Hence, the
award of the Tribunal is set aside and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is
awarded to the claimants with 7.5% interest from the date of petition till the
date of realisation. The said award amount along with accrued interest shall
be equally shared among the claimants 1 to 5.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
VRI
5. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the entire award
amount along with accrued interest being deposited in the MCOP account.
If so, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount as awarded in this
appeal and the balance amount is permitted to be withdrawn by the
Insurance Company.
6. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No
costs.
03.02.2021
vri
To
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
District Judge, Karaikal District.
CMA NO.973 OF 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
