Madras High Court
The Manager vs Saritha on 26 February, 2021
C.M.A(MD) No.434 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED 26.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
C.M.A(MD) No.434 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011
The Manager,
The New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,
Thanjavur. .. 2nd Respondent/Appellant
vs.
1.Saritha
2.Minor Regunath
3.Natarajan
4.Saroja
5.Sivamurthy ...Petitioners/Respondents 1 to 5
6.Ramasamy ...1st Respondent/6th Respondent
(Minor Respondent 2 is represented
by their Guardian and mother
Respondent No.1)
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 09.08.2010
passed in MACOP No.15 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (1st Additional District and Sessions Judge) (PCR),
Thanjavur.
1/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.434 of 2011
For Appellant :Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For R1 to R5 :Mr.S.Deenadhayalan
For R6 : Mr.S.Arunachalam
JUDGMENT
The appellant-Insurance Company challenges the award passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1st Additional District and Sessions
Judge) (PCR), Thanjavur made in M.C.O.P.No.15/2008, wherein, the
Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,55,000/- against the total claim of
Rs.10,00,000/-.
2. The wife, 6 months old minor son and the parents, who are the
legal heirs of the deceased Rengasamy, filed a claim petition contending
that on 29.10.2006 at about 09.00 p.m., the deceased was travelling in a
tractor bearing registration No.TN-55-K-5947 as a coolie. The tractor
was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and it capsized.
In the accident, he sustained injuries and immediately, he was taken to
Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, where, he was declared dead.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.434 of 2011
3. The appellant resisted the claim petition contending that the
deceased travelled in the Tractor as gratuitous passenger. Since no
additional premium was collected to cover the liability, the Insurance
Company cannot be made liable to pay any amount as compensation to
the claimants. It was also contended that the vehicle was overloaded at
the time of accident.
4. To prove the defence taken by the appellant, they examined two
witnesses and marked three documents. The Tribunal having found that
the registration certificate of the offending vehicle was not produced to
show the seating capacity of the tractor, the case of the appellant was
rejected.
5. It is also stated that the driver was not possessing valid and
effective driving licence at the time of accident. According to them,
there was no permit to drive the transport vehicle. The Tribunal again
rejected the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant following
the judgment reported in 2010(1) TNMAC 321, wherein, it has been held
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.434 of 2011
that the tractor and trailer would be considered only as light motor
vehicle, since the total unladen weight will not exceed 7500 kgs. It
would be sufficient to have a driving licence to drive Light Motor
Vehicle and the law does not require to got a permit to drive the tractor.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai,
would contend that the Insurance Policy, which was marked as Ex.R2
does not cover the liability of the load men. A perusal of Ex.R2 would
reveal that the total premium of Rs.4,015/- was paid for the relevant
period for third party basic, W.C. Driver and employee.
7. In the instant case, the claimants have categorically stated that
the deceased was an employee of the owner of the vehicle. So, I do not
find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.
Considering the fact that the deceased died at the age of 25 years and the
claimants are wife, minor son and parents, the award of the Tribunal is
fair and reasonable and does not require any interference.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.434 of 2011
8. For foregoing reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
9. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
entire award amount, with accrued interest and costs, less the amount
already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the
respondents 1,3 to 5/Claimants 1, 3 to 5 are permitted to withdraw the
award amount as per the ratio of apportionment made by the Tribunal, by
making necessary application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall
deposit the share of the minor second claimant/second respondent in any
one of the Nationalized bank in a Fixed Deposit initially for a period of
three years and renewable thereafter, till the minor attains majority. The
mother of the minor claimant/1st respondent is permitted to withdraw the
accrued interest once in three months directly from the bank.
Index :Yes/No 26.02.2021
Internet:Yes/No
am
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.434 of 2011
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
1st Additional District and Sessions Judge,
(PCR), Thanjavur.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.434 of 2011
K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J
am
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD) No.434 of 2011
26.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
