Skip to content


The Branch Manager New India Assurance Company Limited, Dindigul Vs. Lakshmi and Another - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.M.A.(MD)No. 749 of 2006
Judge
AppellantThe Branch Manager New India Assurance Company Limited, Dindigul
RespondentLakshmi and Another
Excerpt:
motor vehicles act, 1988 - section 173 -.....by the first respondent/claimant. against the said order granting compensation, the insurance company filed the present appeal challenging the order on the ground that the tractor met with an accident was carrying excess persons and further loaded with bricks, which is not permitted under the permit rules. by loading the bricks for commercial use, the tractor had violated the policy conditions and therefore, the appellant insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the victim. 3. the tribunal, considering the points raised by the appellant, made a categorical finding that the appellant insurance company had not proved that the vehicle met with an accident was used for commercial purpose and no document also filed to that effect. in the absence of any documentary proof,.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 07.03.2006 on the file of the Workmen's Compensation, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul in W.C.No.291 of 2004.)

The accident took place on 12.09.2004 at about 8.45 a.m. and the victim filed an application for compensation before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

2. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Workmen's Compensation, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded Rs.3,49,843/- towards total compensation for the grievous injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant. Against the said order granting compensation, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal challenging the order on the ground that the Tractor met with an accident was carrying excess persons and further loaded with bricks, which is not permitted under the permit Rules. By loading the bricks for commercial use, the Tractor had violated the policy conditions and therefore, the appellant Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the victim.

3. The Tribunal, considering the points raised by the appellant, made a categorical finding that the appellant Insurance Company had not proved that the vehicle met with an accident was used for commercial purpose and no document also filed to that effect. In the absence of any documentary proof, the Tribunal negatived the contention of the appellant Insurance Company with regard to the loading of bricks and the same is in violation of the policy conditions. Therefore, this Court do not find any infirmity in the award passed by the competent authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act. But the only point is that whether the principle of pay and recovery can be ordered. But, in the present case, the appellant Insurance Company failed to prove that the Tractor, which met with an accident, was loaded with bricks for commercial use. Hence, the principle of pay and recovery cannot be adopted in the present case on hand and in respect of other aspects, this Court finds no infirmity in the order of the award and accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award is confirmed.

4. It is reported that the award amount has already been deposited. The respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same, through RTGS, without filing any necessary application. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //