National Insurance Company vs Saranya
2021 Latest Caselaw 14883 Mad

                                                                              CMA.No.2599 of 2016



                                    In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

                                                 Dated : 26.7.2021

                                                      Coram

                                  The Honourable Mr.Justice ABDUL QUDDHOSE
                                   Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2599 of 2016
                                            and CMP.No.18931 of 2016


                      National Insurance Company
                      Ltd., Attur, Salem District.                                ...Appellant
                                                          Vs
                      1.Saranya
                      2.Ramaswamy
                      3.Mariyayi
                      4.Rajendran                                                 ...Respondents


                            APPEAL under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

                      against the fair and decretal order dated 30.11.2015 in MCOP.No.423

                      of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special

                      District Court), Salem.


                               For Appellant :                 Mrs.N.B.Surekha
                               For Respondents 1 to 3 :        Mr.SP.Yuvaraj
                               Respondent-4 :                  person not found



                                                     JUDGMENT

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

http://www.judis.nic.in CMA.No.2599 of 2016

2. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company

challenging the award dated 30.11.2015 passed in MCOP.No.423 of

2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special

District Court), Salem (hereinafter called the Tribunal).

3. The appellant – Insurance Company has challenged its

liability to pay compensation to respondents 1 to 3 herein –

claimants, as, according to them, the deceased was a gratuitous

passenger in the insured vehicle at the time of accident.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant herein – Insurance

Company submits before this Court that respondents 1 to 3 herein –

claimants have already withdrawn their compensation amount, which

was deposited by the appellant herein – Insurance Company before

the Tribunal pursuant to the directions given by the Tribunal.

However, she further submits that the evidence available on record

will clearly reveal that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger at

the time of accident.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant herein – Insurance

Company has drawn the attention of this Court to the insurance

policy, which was marked as Ex.R1 before the Tribunal and would

submit that the insurance policy gives coverage only for the driver

http://www.judis.nic.in CMA.No.2599 of 2016

and not for any other person travelling in the insured vehicle. She

would also submit that there were six claims instituted pertaining to

the very same accident and excepting for the claim, which is the

subject matter of this appeal, the remaining five claims were

adjudicated by the Tribunal holding that the owner of the vehicle

alone was liable to pay compensation and has exonerated the

appellant herein – Insurance Company. However, she would further

submit that since the money has already been withdrawn by

respondents 1 to 3 herein – claimants, it is sufficient that this Court

may grant pay and recovery rights to the appellant herein –

Insurance Company by directing the appellant to pay respondents 1

to 3 herein – claimants the compensation amount and recover the

same from the insured namely the fourth respondent herein. She

would also submit that the fourth respondent remained ex parte both

before the Tribunal as well as before this Court.

6. This Court has also perused and examined Ex.R1 (insurance

policy) and is in agreement with the submission made by the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant herein – Insurance Company that

the said policy gives coverage only for the driver of the vehicle and

not to any other person travelling in the very same vehicle.

http://www.judis.nic.in CMA.No.2599 of 2016

Admittedly, the deceased was travelling in the vehicle along with the

driver.

http://www.judis.nic.in CMA.No.2599 of 2016

7. For the foregoing reasons, the award passed by the Tribunal

holding the appellant herein – Insurance Company liable to pay

compensation is confirmed. However, considering the fact that the

fourth respondent herein (insured) committed a policy violation, the

appellant herein – Insurance Company is granted pay and recovery

rights.

8. Accordingly, the above civil miscellaneous appeal is partly

allowed and this Court permits the appellant herein – Insurance

Company to recover the compensation amount as determined by the

Tribunal under the impugned award from the fourth respondent

herein in accordance with law after paying the same to respondents 1

to 3 herein – claimants, if not already paid. No costs. Consequently,

the connected CMP is closed.

26.7.2021 To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Salem.

RS

http://www.judis.nic.in CMA.No.2599 of 2016

ABDUL QUDDHOSE,J

RS

CMA.No.2599 of 2016 & CMP.No.18931 of 2016

26.7.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in