Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Suseela on 1 February, 2024
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.M.A(MD)No.461 of 2017
and
C.M.P(MD)No.5065 of 2017
The Branch Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Rai’s Tower, Plot No.2054,
2nd Avenue,Second Floor,
(Next to Senthil Nursing Home),,
Anna Nagar,
Chennai- 600 040. ... Appellant/Respondent
.Vs.
1.Suseela
2.Narmatha
3.Narenkumar
(Respondents 2 and 3 are declared as major and the guardianship
of R1 is discharged as per order made in C.M.P(MD)Nos.8033 and 8066
of 2018 in C.M.A(MD)No.461 of 2017, dated 08.03.2019)
... Respondents 1 to 3 /
Respondents 1 to 3
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act praying this Court to set aside the judgment and decree made in
M.C.O.P.No.726 of 2012, dated 21.11.2016, on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal(Principal District Judge),Pudukkottai.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Gokul
For Respondents : Mr.Dani Jeshwanth
for Mr.R.Karunanidhi
JUDGMENT
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
AND
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award passed by
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarding a compensation of Rs.23,73,800/-
with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of claim petition till the date of
realisation.
2.The Insurance Company is before this Court on the ground that the
claimants are the dependants of the deceased owner of a private car which got
capsized due to the negligence of the driver employed by the deceased. The
vehicle was covered under Insurance Policy marked as Ex.R1 and it being a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
comprehensive policy, the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the
compensation is restricted to Rs.2 lakhs, as per the policy. However, the Tribunal
ignoring the fact that the deceased is the owner of the vehicle, had construed
him as the occupant of the vehicle taking note of the fact that additional premium
paid for eight passengers, had awarded compensation, as if considering the
owner as a third party.
3.The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit
that the reference to the Larger Bench by the Honourable Supreme Court in
Bhagyalakshmi and others .vs. The United India Insurance Company Limited
and another reported in 2009(1) TN MAC 659(SC) has no application in this
case, since the fact admitted by the authorities is Insurance Policy is a Private
Car Package Policy. The deceased, being the owner of the vehicle, is one of the
party to the contract has been bound by the Insurance Agreement. The owner so
deceased, had paid the premium, only additional premium to the tune of Rs.100/-
for personal accident. Therefore the dependants are entitled only for a sum of
Rs.2 lakhs as compensation, as per the terms of the policy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.A perusal of the evidence let in by the parties and the order of the
Tribunal reveals that Muthukumaran, owner of the car bearing Registration
No.TN 55-A 9999 was travelling in the car on 01.04.2012 and the vehicle was
driven by one Manikandan, near Chocknathanpatti sub-way infront of Reed
Foundation, the vehicle got capsized when the driver tried to avoid a ditch in the
road and took sudden turn. While the driver sustained injury, the owner of the
vehicle Muthukumaran sustained head injury and died on the spot. The
claimants are the wife and minor children of the deceased Muthukumaran.
5.The issue is as to whether the fact of this nature that the owner of the car
can take advantage of a third party coverage, on the ground that he should be
construed as an occupant of the car and not as the owner of the car?
6.Common sense and prudent requires to hold that the owner of the car,
who is a party to the Insurance Policy cannot be construed as a third party, for
the reason that he was not driving the car but was an occupant of the car. The
terms of the policy and the insurance make distinct classification between a party
to the Insurance Agreement and third party to the Insurance Agreement. Higher
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
compensation for a party to the Insurance Agreement, more and above the
coverage to be indemnified by the Insurance Company, is against the principles
of law. The point for reference in Bagyalakshmi’s case as cited supra is whether
such interpretation should be extended to third parties or restricted to the owner
of the vehicle, a party to the Insurance Agreement.
7.Hence, this Court finds that if the claimant is a party to the Insurance
Contract, he is entitled for indemnifying to the accident coverage to the extent of
premium paid and not over and above that. Therefore the order of the Tribunal is
set aside and the appellant Insurance Company is only liable to pay a sum of Rs.2
lakhs as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from
the date of claim petition till the date of realisation .
8.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants
submitted that the appellant/Insurance Company has already deposited 50% of
the award amount as ordered by the Tribunal and the same has already been
withdrawn by the respondents/claimants. If it is so, they are not liable to pay any
further amount. Further, the appellant/Insurance Company shall not go for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
recovery of the excess amount from the claimants/respondents.
9.With the above clarification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed
of. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition
is closed.
[G.J.,J.] [C.K.,J.]
01.02.2024
NCS : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
vsn
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(Principal District Judge),
Pudukkottai.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
/.DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
and
01.02.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
