Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Dhanasekar : Ist on 1 March, 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
C.M.A(MD)No.1058 of 2011
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011
The Branch Manager,
The United India Insurance Company Limited,
10/18, Kuppana, G.R.Complex,
Velayuthampalayam,
Karur. :Appellant/Second respondent
.vs.
1.Dhanasekar : Ist Respondent/Petitioner
2.P.Devaraj :2nd Respondent/Ist Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree made in
M.C.O.P.No.18 of 2008, dated 28.02.2011, on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal(Chief Judicial Magistrate), Dindigul.
For Appellant :Mr.I.Suthakaran
For Respondent-1 :Mr.P.Satish Murugan
for M/s.Hindu Associates
For Respondent-2 :Set exparte
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
JUDGMENT
*************
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed againt the award
made in M.C.O.P.No.18 of 2008, dated 28.02.2011, on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Chief Judicial Magistrate),
Dindigul.
2.The Insurance Company is the appellant herein challenging
the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.18 of 2009. The first respondent
herein has travelled as a gratutious passenger in a private car
owned by the second respondent.The vehicle owned by the second
respondent, is insured with the appellant-Insurance Company.
3.The case of the claim petitioner before the claims Tribunal
is that while he was travelling as an occupant in the Maruthi Omni
van bearing Registration No. TN 37 S 1051, the driver drove the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a small
bridge. In the impact, he sustained injury and hence he filed the
claim petition on the ground that he sustained injury in the Road
Traffic Accident.
4.In support of his claim, he deposed himself as P.W.1 and
marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The Doctor, who treated the claimant is
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
examined as P.W.2. An Assitant from the Insurance Company is
examined as R.W.1 and the policy of the private car is marked as
Ex.R1. The private car policy is a third party policy.
5.The Tribunal, on consideration of both oral and
documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident
had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Driver
Dinesh, the driver of the offending vehicle and accordingly, fixed
the liability upon the Insurance Company as well as the owner of
the vehicle. Based upon the medical evidence of P.W.2-Doctor, fixed
the disability and awarded the compensation. Challenging the said
award on the question of liability, the Insurance Company has
preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
6.The respondent was called absent.
7.After perusing the document Ex.R1, the original policy, I
find that it is an Act Policy covering third party insurance alone.
There is no premium paid for the occupant of the car. Additional
premium was paid only to the owner-cum- driver and WC of
employees and not for the occupant of the car and hence, in view
of the admitted position that the injured had travelled in the car
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
as an occupant infront of the owner of the car and injury to such
person is not covered under the terms of the policy and
consequently, in the absence of any additional premium being paid,
the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with the liability to pay
the compensation to the claimant. Therefore, the liability cast upon
the appellant Insurance Company is set aside and the Insurance
Company is exonerated from its liability. The owner of the car is
liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. Therefore, it is open
to the claimant to get the compensation realised from the owner of
the vehicle, by following the due process of law.
8.The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed, with the
above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
01.03.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsn
To
1.TheMotor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(Chief Judicial Magistrate),
Dindigul.
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.,J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)No.1058 of 2011
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011
01.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
