Madras High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Muniyaiah on 24 February, 2021
C.M.A(MD)No.621 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
C.M.A(MD) Nos.621 & 622 of 2010
and
M.P(MD)Nos.2 & 2 of 2010
C.M.A(MD)No.621 of 2010
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Madurai.
(C.No.122515) ... Appellant/2nd Respondent
vs.
1.Muniyaiah ... Respondent/Petitioner
2.Thanikodi ... Respondent/1st Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, against the judgment and Decree in M.C.O.P.No.
77/2000 dated 19.04.2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Ramanthapuram.
For Appellant : Mr.J.S.Murali
For R1 : Mr.K.Baalasundaram
For R2 : Dismissed vide Court Order
dated 29.11.2017
1/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.621 of 2010
C.M.A(MD)No.622 of 2010
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Madurai.
(C.No.122515) ... Appellant/2nd Respondent
vs.
1.T.Sathaiyah ... Respondent/Petitioner
2.Thanikodi ... Respondent/1st Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.
78/2000 dated 19.04.2005 on the ifle of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Ramanthapuram.
For Appellant : Mr.J.S.Murali
For R1 : Mr.K.Baalasundaram
For R2 : Dismissed vide Court order
dated 29.11.2017
COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeals are directed against the common award passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court,
Ramanathapuram in M.C.O.P.No.77 & 78 of 2000.
2/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.621 of 2010
2. This is a case of injury. According to the claimants, on
25.02.1999 they travelled in a Tractor attached with Trailer bearing
Registration No.TN-65-0793 and TN-65-N-0794, as load men, but
the driver of the Tractor drove it in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the road side blockade. In the impact, they
sustained injuries.
3. The claim petitions were resisted by the
appellant/Insurance Company contending that the Tractor involved
in the accident is to be used only for agricultural purpose, but at the
time of accident, it was used as commercial vehicle. It is also
contended that the injured claimants were gratuitous passengers
and even if they travelled as a load man, the policy does not cover
their liability.
4. The Tribunal considering the evidence adduced by the
claimants, awarded compensation of Rs.10,800/- and Rs.65,059/-
respectively, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
5. Mr.J.S.Murali, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence adduced by P.W.1
3/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.621 of 2010
and the Insurance Policy Ex.R1, would argue that the vehicle was
insured with the appellant under 'Act' policy and it is to be used only
for agricultural purpose. But the evidence of P.W.1 would prove that
it was used for commercial purpose, hence, the liability fastened on
the the Insurance Company is to be set aside.
6. Per contra, Mr.K.Baalasundaram, learned counsel appearing
for the first respondent in both appeals, would argue in justifying
the award of the Tribunal.
7. In the matter on hand, in the claim petitions, no details
have been given for what purpose the tractor was used at the
relevant time. But in the cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that at
the of accident, about 5 to 6 persons were travelled in the trailer
and they used the vehicle for carrying the materials from Karaikudi
to Ramanathapuram, which shows the vehicle was used for
commercial purpose. So, I find force in the submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant.
8. In the result, while confirming the quantum of
compensation, direction issued by the Tribunal to the
4/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.621 of 2010
appellant/Insurance Company to pay the award amount, is set
aside. It is open to the claimants to recover the amount awarded
by the Tribunal from the owner of the vehicle.
9. Accordingly, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed.
10. The Tribunal is directed to refund the amount to the
appellant-insurance company, if any, deposited by them to the credit
of the claim petition, if the same is not withdrawn by the claimants.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No 24.02.2021
am
Note :
In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the
order that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate /
litigant concerned.
5/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.621 of 2010
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Subordinate Court, Ramanthapuram.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
6/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.621 of 2010
K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J.
am
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD) Nos.621 & 622 of 2010
24.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
