Madras High Court
M/S.United India Insurance ... vs Veeramal on 9 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.240 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
C.M.A.No.240 of 2012
and
M.P.No.1 of 2012
M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited,
represented by its Branch Manager,
Ranipettai.
... Appellant
..vs..
1.Veeramal
2.Balamurugan
3.Krishnan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, to set aside the judgment and decree in MACTOP.No.246 of 2000
dated 10.02.2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(Principal District Judge) Tiruvannamalai and grant costs throughout.
Page No.1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.240 of 2012
For Appellant : Ms.Renuka Devi
for Mr.Raja Kalifulla
For Respondents : No appearance for R1 and R2
R3 – Notice unserved
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed to set aside the
judgment and decree in MACTOP.No.246 of 2000 dated 10.02.2003 on
the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District
Judge) Tiruvannamalai.
2. On 23.08.1999 at about 1.30 p.m. the deceased
Thangavel was travelling in the van bearing Regn. No.TN-45-W-4649 as
a Labourer and when the van reached Adaiyur at Tiruvannamalai near
Murugan temple, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, the
van capsized and the deceased died on the spot. Claiming that the
accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the van owned by the 3rd respondent herein, insured with the appellant
Page No.2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.240 of 2012
herein the respondents 1 and 2/ claimants have filed a claim petition
before the Tribunal claiming an award of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation.
3. Before the Tribunal, PW1 and PW2 were examined on the
side of the claimants and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. On the side of
the respondents no witnesses were examined and no documents were
marked. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has
fastened the liability on the appellant/ Insurance Company and awarded a
sum of Rs.2,17,000/- along with the interest at 9% p.a. as compensation.
Against the said award, the Insurance Company has come up on appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
the 3rd respondent is the owner of the vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN-45-
W-4649 is a goods vehicle, which had involved in the accident and the
same is insured with the appellant/ Insurance Company. The said goods
vehicle was used for a political meeting at Tiruvannamalai carrying
passengers as alleged in the FIR complaint. The deceased had travelled
Page No.3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.240 of 2012
as un-authorized person in the goods vehicle and therefore, the policy is
not covered as against the un-authorized passengers. Therefore, the
appellant/ Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to
the respondents/ claimants and the interest granted by the Tribunal at 9%
p.a. is excessive and the same is also to be modified.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Though
notice served on the respondents none appeared for the respondents.
6. The instant appeal is by the appellant/ Insurance
Company on the ground that the appellant/ Insurance Company is not
liable to pay the compensation as the vehicle involved in the accident is a
goods vehicle and the deceased travelled in the vehicle as an un-
authorized passenger. On a perusal of the documents marked before the
Tribunal, the claimants have marked the certified copies of the FIR,
Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, Post-mortem certificate, charge sheet
and the judgment in C.C.No.212 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial
Page No.4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.240 of 2012
Magistrate No.II, Tiruvannamalai and on the side of the respondent/
Appellant herein no documents were marked and no evidence adduced
before the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no evidence produced before this
court to satisfy that the said van involved in the accident bearing
Regn.No.TN-45-W-4649 is a goods vehicle. Thus, this court cannot
accept the contention of the appellant/ Insurance Company that the said
vehicle is a goods vehicle and the deceased travelled as an un-authorized
passenger. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence or
any other substantial evidence to prove the contention of the appellant/
Insurance Company that the deceased is an un-authorized passenger
travelled on the goods vehicle, the same cannot be accepted and the said
contention is liable to be rejected. Therefore, the reason as found in the
award of the Tribunal as against the liability is concerned is perfectly
valid and does not warrant interference of this court.
7. The second contention of the appellant/ Insurance
Company is regarding the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. The
Page No.5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.240 of 2012
said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has some force.
Accordingly, the interest rate fixed by the Tribunal at 9% per annum
from the date of petition, stands modified to 7.5% per annum from the
date of petition.
8. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed by upholding the findings of the Tribunal, on liability of the
appellant to pay the compensation and by modifying the interest rate
from 9% to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. The appellant is
directed to deposit the compensation amount with the modified interest
rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, less the amount if any
already deposited within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the
claimants are permitted to withdraw the same as per the ratio apportioned
by the Tribunal, on making proper application. No costs. Consequently,
the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Page No.6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.240 of 2012
9. The learned counsel for the appellant/ Insurance
Company would now submit that the entire award amount was deposited
before the Tribunal. It is seen from the records that there is no interim
order of stay granted by this court. Therefore, it is made clear that if the
compensation amount is already withdrawn by the claimants, there is no
question of recovery as against the claimants.
09.02.2021
dsa
Index : Yes/ No
Internet : Yes/ No
Speaking order/ Non-speaking order
Page No.7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.240 of 2012
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.,
dsa
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai.
2.The Branch Manager,
M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited,
Ranipettai.
CMA.No.240 of 2012
09.02.2021
Page No.8/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
