Madras High Court
M.Ramanathan vs P.A.Arumugam on 6 August, 2019
Author: S. Ramathilagam
Bench: S. Ramathilagam
C.M.A.No.1032 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.08.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S. RAMATHILAGAM
C.M.A.No.1032 of 2019
M.Ramanathan ... Appellant
Vs.
1.P.A.Arumugam
2.The United India Insurance Company Limited,
Represented by its Branch Manager,
No.74/A-2, Sathya Medicals Complex,
1st Floor, Vaniyambadi Road,
Near Sacred Heart College,
Tirupattur Town & Taluk,
Vellore District. ... Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated
29.12.2008 in M.C.O.P.No.147 of 2008, on the file of Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court at Tirupattur,
Vellore District.
For Appellant : Mr.PA.Sudeshkumar
for M/s.Sun Associates
R1 : Ex-parte
For R2 : Mrs.I.Malar
1/9
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1032 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.12.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.147 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court at Tirupattur, Vellore District.
2.The facts leading to filing of the claim petition are as follows:-
i)On 13.09.2004, the appellant was proceeding towards Tirupattur in Krishnagiri - Tirupattur Main Road, in Yamaha motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-33-A-2094, belonging to the 1 st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. At about 12.30 hours, when he was nearing Ranga Petrol Bunk, suddenly, a dog crossed the road very nearer to the motor cycle, the petitioner applied sudden brake and hence, the said motor cycle skidded. Due to the said impact, the petitioner fell down from the motor cycle and sustained grievous injuries.
3.The appellant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.147 of 2008, claiming a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The Tribunal, after hearing either side and on analysis of evidence on record, vide judgment and decree dated 29.12.2008, awarded a compensation of 2/9 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1032 of 2019 Rs.64,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition, payable by the 1st respondent herein.
4.Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant/claimant has preferred the present appeal, to enhance the amount and to shift the liability on the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.
5.The grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal erred in holding that the pillion driver is not a third party. The Tribunal has not considered the term “any person” employed in Section 147(i) (b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which includes every person other than the parties to the contract. Hence, definition of 3 rd party includes everyone, be it a person traveling in the vehicle itself or any other vehicle or one walking on the road. Further, the grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal erred in not considering that the policy was a “Comprehensive Policy” and not “Act Policy” and it does not require any separate premium to be paid to cover the third party. Further, the grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the entire amount as claimed by the appellant in his claim petition, but the Tribunal has awarded a lesser amount, which needs to be enhanced. 3/9 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1032 of 2019
6.Mr.PA.Sudeshkumar, learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the grounds raised in the present appeal and contended that the insurance policy is a comprehensive policy, which covers the third party, which does not necessitate payment of any additional premium for third party, however, the Tribunal erred in fixing the liability on the 1st respondent, totally leaving the 2nd respondent on mere surmises and conjectures. He further vehemently contended that the policy covers the appellant/claimant also and hence, the 2nd respondent is only liable to pay compensation to the appellant/claimant.
7.Per contra, Mrs.I.Malar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, contended that the Tribunal, on analysis of policy documents and other evidence on record, has dismissed the claim insofar as the 2nd respondent is concerned and hence, the judgment of the Tribunal requires no interference by this Court.
8.Heard Mr.PA.Sudeshkumar, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Mrs.I.Malar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.
4/9 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1032 of 2019
9.On a perusal of records, it is observed that the said vehicle, which was driven by the appellant at the time of accident was belonging to his friend one Logu and the said vehicle was insured with the second respondent. The Tribunal also observed the fact that the appellant/claimant admitted his offence before the Criminal Court and also paid fine and the said judgment of the Criminal Court was placed by the respondent before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has observed that the appellant/claimant has not placed any material to prove as to whether he was possessing a valid driving license at the time of accident.
10.The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that, when an accident occurs while the vehicle is driven by anyone other than its owner, an additional premium has to be paid to cover the injured under the policy. However, in the absence of the same, the 2nd respondent cannot be made liable to pay compensation to the appellant/claimant. Whereas, it is the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that any person, who is driving the insured vehicle, even if he is not the owner, has right to claim compensation under the personal coverage of the policy and Ex.R4 does not make any reference for payment of additional premium, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal fixing the liability on the 1st respondent is baseless and the same has to 5/9 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1032 of 2019 be set aside, by fixing liability on the Insurance Company.
11.It is seen from the judgment passed by the Tribunal that, all the above points raised by either side have already been agitated before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on careful perusal of all oral and documentary evidence on record, including the policy document (Ex.R4) has observed that, the appellant/claimant was driving the vehicle, belonging to his friend one Logu. The insurance policy covers only the owner of the vehicle, the 1st respondent herein and further, the vehicle was driven by the appellant without a valid license at the time of accident. The Tribunal, based on the evidence on record, has discussed in detail that, if an accident occurs when the vehicle is driven by anyone other than the owner, the person injured due to such accident can be covered under the policy, only if an additional premium is paid, however, in the case at hand, since the 1st respondent has given his vehicle to the appellant/claimant, who did not hold a valid licence, and has not paid any additional premium to cover the injured, the 1st respondent is made liable to pay compensation and not the 2nd respondent, which, according to this Court, is very reasonable and hence, stands confirmed.
12.As regards the quantum of compensation, P.W.1, in his 6/9 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1032 of 2019 evidence, has stated his monthly income as Rs.5,000/-. However, it is seen that he has not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate the same. Hence, the Tribunal was of the view that the appellant would have earned Rs.2,500/- per month and has accordingly awarded Rs.5,000/- towards loss of income, which, in the opinion of this Court, is fair, just and reasonable. The Tribunal has considered the evidence of Dr.Ilangovan (P.W.2) and the Disability Certificate (Ex.P7) issued by him and has accordingly awarded Rs.35,000/- towards the permanent disability of 35% sustained by the appellant, which, in the opinion of this Court, is optimal. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other heads are also fair, just and reasonable and require no enhancement.
13.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
06.08.2019 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No jas 7/9 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1032 of 2019 To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Tirupattur, Vellore-District.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
8/9 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No.1032 of 2019 S. RAMATHILAGAM, J.
jas C.M.A.No.1032 of 2019 06.08.2019 9/9 http://www.judis.nic.in