Skip to content


M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Madurai Vs. Mariammal and Another - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.M.A. (MD)No. 295 to 300 of 2004
Judge
AppellantM/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Madurai
RespondentMariammal and Another
Excerpt:
m.v. act - section 173 -.....exs.r1 and 2 and after considering the oral and documentary evidence, passed a common award and awarded compensation as stated supra. aggrieved against the said award passed by the tribunal, the appellant insurance company has preferred the present appeals. 5. according to the appellant insurance corporation, all the claimants were travelled in the mini lorry violating the policy conditions of the appellant insurance company. therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to these claimants. however, the tribunal considered the evidence of the claimants as well as the insurance company, come to a conclusion that as per section 174 of motor vehicles act, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. 6. further, it is stated by the learned counsel for the.....
Judgment:

(Prayer in C.M.A.(MD) No.295 of 2004: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act., to set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2004 and made in M.C.O.P.No.607 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli.)

Common Order:

These civil miscellaneous appeals are filed by the insurance company against the common award passed by the Tribunal dated 07.062004 made in M.C.O.P.Nos.607, 608, 666, 699, 700 and 889 of 2002 respectively on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli.

2. The appellant, who is the insurance company in all the appeals, has challenged only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. According to the claimants/respondent No.1 in each appeal, they have filed separate M.C.O.Ps., under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act for compensation against the appellant insurance company and the second respondent herein, who is the owner of the vehicle. It is stated that on 28.03.2002, all the claimants were travelled from Thoppudiyarpatti towards Chidambarapuram in the vehicle viz., Mini lorry, bearing registration No.TN 59 L 7938, owned by the second respondent to attend funeral function and at about 1.00 p.m., while the mini lorry proceeding near Ilandhakulam branch road, in Tirunelveli Madurai main road, the driver of the mini lorry, driven the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, for which, all the claimants got injured. Hence, the claimants have filed the claim petitions before the Tribunal, for awarding compensation.

4. During the trial, the Tribunal, examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to 24 on the side of the claimants and examined R.Ws.1 and 2 and marked exs.R1 and 2 and after considering the oral and documentary evidence, passed a common award and awarded compensation as stated supra. Aggrieved against the said award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant Insurance Company has preferred the present appeals.

5. According to the appellant insurance corporation, all the claimants were travelled in the mini lorry violating the policy conditions of the appellant insurance company. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to these claimants. However, the Tribunal considered the evidence of the claimants as well as the insurance company, come to a conclusion that as per Section 174 of Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.

6. Further, it is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company that there is no contractual liability to the category of persons, travelled in the mini lorry and hence, the claim petitioner had to liable to be rejected on the ground of No Premium, No Liability. It is also further submitted that the interest awarded at the rate of 9% is against the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence, the appellant insurance company has preferred the present revisions.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the Tribunal has considered the materials furnished by the claimants by way of oral and documentary evidence and also the evidence of insurance company and also taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, has held that there is violation of policy condition of the insurance company and therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, no warrants interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and the grounds raised by the appellant insurance corporation cannot be accepted by this Court. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants/first respondent that the quantum of award passed by the Tribunal is a reasonable one and interest awarded at the rate of 9% also does not warrant interference, since the accident was occurred prior to 2004 and hence, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would applicable to the fact of the present case.

8. I have heard the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the first respondent/claimants. None appears for the second respondent/owner of the vehicle.

9. All the claimants, who sustained injury in an accident have filed separate M.C.O.Ps for compensation. The claim petitions were objected by the appellant insurance company as there is violation of policy conditions. However, the trial Court, considered the oral and documentary evidence on either side, has come to the conclusion that there is violation of policy condition and the appellant insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and accordingly awarded compensation as follows:

In M.C.O.P.No.607 of 2002

1.Transport expensesRs. 500
2.Extra nourishmentRs. 1,500
3.Pain and SufferingRs. 5,000
4.Loss of incomeRs. 5,000
5.Grievous InjuryRs.15,000
TotalRs.27,000
In M.C.O.P.No.608 of 2002

1.Transport expensesRs. 500
2.Extra nourishmentRs. 2,000
3.Pain and SufferingRs. 5,000
4.Loss of incomeRs. 5,000
5.Partial permanent disabilityRs.20,000
6.Grievous InjuryRs.15,000
TotalRs.47,500
In M.C.O.P.No.666 of 2002

1.Transport expensesRs. 1,000
2.Extra nourishmentRs. 2,000
3.Pain and SufferingRs. 5,000
4.Loss of incomeRs. 5,000
5.Grievous InjuryRs.10,000
TotalRs.23,000
In M.C.O.P.No.699 of 2002

1.Transport expensesRs. 500
2.Extra nourishmentRs.1,000
3.Pain and SufferingRs.2,500
4.Grievous InjuryRs.5,000
TotalRs.9,000
In M.C.O.P.No.700 of 2002

1.Transport expensesRs. 500
2.Medical BillsRs. 350
3.Extra nourishmentRs. 500
4.Pain and SufferingRs. 5,000
5.Loss of incomeRs.20,000
6.Grievous InjuryRs.20,000
7.Partial Permanent disability 40%Rs.40,000
TotalRs.86,350
In M.C.O.P.No.889 of 2002

1.Transport expensesRs. 500
2.Extra nourishmentRs. 1,500
3.Pain and SufferingRs. 5,000
4.Loss of incomeRs. 5,000
5.Grievous InjuryRs.15,000
6.Disability15%Rs.15,000
TotalRs.42,000
Against the said award, the present appeals were filed.

10. Perusal of the records and submissions made by the respective counsels would show that the claimants got disability due to the said accident and they had produced the medical certificates to that effect issued by the competent Medical Officer before the Tribunal. Those documents were also marked and the Medical Officer has also been examined before the Tribunal. On the basis of the medical certificates and the evidence of the Medical Officer, the Tribunal had fixed the disability of the claimants in the M.C.O.Ps. and passed the award as stated supra. Perusal of the evidencing documents would show that the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation under different heads. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,000/- (Rupees thousand only) for 1% disability, which does not warrant interference of this Court.

11. As far as the contention of the appellant with regard to the interest is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded 9% interest per annum and hence, the same may be reduced to 7.5% per annum as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited Vs. Rajapriya reported in 2005 ACJ 1441, wherein, the Apex Court has taken note of the prevailing rate of interest in bank deposits, reduced the interest from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum.

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case along with the said decision, the accident in question in the present revisions was taken place in the year 2002. The decision would apply to the case, where the accident took place after 2005. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case and hence, the interest at the rate of 9% awarded by the Tribunal is sustained and the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be confirmed.

13. According to the insurance corporation, already 50% of the award amount has been deposited before the Tribunal. According to the claimants, so far, the claimants have not withdrawn any amount on the said deposited amount. In view of the same, I am inclined to pass the following order:

(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2004 and made in M.C.O.P.Nos.607, 608, 666, 699, 700 and 889 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli are hereby confirmed.

(ii) The Tribunal is directed to disburse 50% of the award amount along with accrued interest already deposited in each appeal, by the appellant insurance company to the claimants, on filing proper applications.

(iii) The appellant insurance company is directed to deposit the entire balance award amount along with cost and accrued interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realisation of the amount, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(iv) on depositing of such amount, the Tribunal is further directed to disburse the same to the claimants, on filing proper applications.

No costs.


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