Madras High Court
National Insurance Company vs Edwardrajan ... 1St on 13 November, 2017
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: K.Kalyanasundaram, V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 13.11.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.M.A(MD)No.125 of 2009 &
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009
National Insurance Company
Limited,
Office situate at New Delhi. ... Appellant /2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.Edwardrajan ... 1st Respondent / Petitioner
2.Selvaraj ... 2nd Respondent / 1st Respondent
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and judgment in M.A.C.O.P.No.
320 of 2005, dated 30.04.2008, by the learned Additional Sub Judge, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tenkasi.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Sivaraman
For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Saravanan
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J] Challenging the award passed in MCOP No.320 of 2005, dated 30.04.2008, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub Judge, Tenkasi) the Insurance Company has come forward with the present appeal.
2. The briefs of the case are that on 06.12.2004 at about 11.30 hours, when the claimant was driving the car, belonging to the first respondent, bearing registration No.TN-76-A-1468, on Tenkasi to Madurai Main Road, a buffalo suddenly crossed the road, so he turned the vehicle to the left side to avoid the accident, but unfortunately, the vehicle dashed against a tamarind tree. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries and immediately, he took first-aid in Government Hospital, Tenkasi and on the same day, he was admitted in TVMC Hospital, Nagarkovil, wherein he took treatment as inpatient from 06.12.2004 to 15.12.2004 and surgery was also performed to him. A criminal case was registered by the Achenpudur Police Station in Crime No.401 of 2004. A claim petition came http://www.judis.nic.in 3 to be filed for awarding compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.
3. The claim was opposed by the Insurance Company by filing counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition. It is the case of the appellant that an occupant of a private car is not a third party and the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the claimant himself and hence, claim petition is not maintainable and no liability can be fastened against them.
4. Before the Tribunal parties let in oral and documentary evidence.
After analyzing the evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had not occurred due to the negligence of the claimant as contended by the second respondent / Insurance Company; that if the claimant had not turned the vehicle to left side, some untoward incident would have been happened and that a sum of Rs.25/- premium was paid for driver alone instead of owner-cum-driver and premium has been paid for four numbers to get compensation. Hence, the claimant is neither a gratuitous passenger nor a third party and as per Ex.R1, the claimant is entitled for compensation and awarded a sum of Rs.20,39,160/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. Aggrieved over the said Award, the Insurance Company http://www.judis.nic.in 4 has come up with this Appeal.
5. The only issue that arises for consideration in this Appeal as to whether the claimant not being a third party and an occupant of a private vehicle, is entitled to get compensation.
6. Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the claimant is tort-feasor in this case and the accident had occurred when he was swerving his motor vehicle to avoid hitting against a buffalo which crossed the road, hence, the appellant cannot be fastened with liability to pay compensation. It is further argued that the award is excessive and exorbitant.
7. It is next contended that the claimant is none other than brother of the insured and there is no pleading nor evidence to prove the relationship of master and servant. Hence, the Insurance Company cannot be mulcted with liability of paying compensation. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has cited the following decisions, wherein, it has been held as follows:-
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
(i) 2009 (2) SCC 417 [New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Sadanand Mukhi and others]
14. It is not a case where even Section 163-A of the Act was resorted to. The respondents filed an application under Section 166 of the Act. Only an Act policy was taken in respect of the motor vehicle. Submission of the learned counsel that being a two-wheeler, the vehicle was more prone to accident and, therefore, whosoever becomes victim of an accident arising out of the use thereof would come within the purview of the term “a person” as provided for in Section 147 of the Act, in our opinion, is not correct.
15. Contract of insurance of a motor vehicle is governed by the provisions of the Insurance Act. The terms of the policy as also the quantum of the premium payable for insuring the vehicle in question depends not only upon the carrying capacity of the vehicle but also on the purpose for which the same was being used and the extent of the risk covered thereby. By taking an “Act policy”, the owner of a vehicle fulfils his statutory obligation as contained in Section 147 of the Act. The liability of the insurer is either statutory or contractual. If it is contractual its liability extends to the risk covered by the policy of insurance. If additional risks are sought to be covered, additional premium has to be paid. If http://www.judis.nic.in 6 the contention of the learned counsel is to be accepted, then to a large extent, the provisions of the Insurance Act become otiose. By reason of such an interpretation the insurer would be liable to cover risk of not only a third party but also others who would not otherwise come within the purview thereof. It is one thing to say that life is uncertain and the same is required to be covered, but it is another thing to say that we must read a statute so as to grant relief to a person not contemplated by the Act. It is not for the court, unless a statute is found to be unconstitutional, to consider the rationality thereof. Even otherwise the provisions of the Act read with the provisions of the Insurance Act appear to be wholly rational.
16. Only because driving of a motor vehicle may cause accident involving loss of life and property not only of a third party but also the owner of the vehicle and the insured vehicle itself, different provisions have been made in the Insurance Act as also the Act laying down different types of insurance policies. The amount of premium required to be paid for each of the policy is governed by the Insurance Act. A statutory regulatory authority fixes the norms and the guidelines.
17. Keeping in view the aforementioned parliamentary object, let us consider the fact of the present case so as to consider as to whether the insurer is liable to pay the amount of compensation in relation to the accident occurred by use of http://www.judis.nic.in 7 the vehicle which was being driven by the son of the insured.
18. We may, for the said purpose, notice certain decisions covering different categories of the claims.
In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [(2006) 4 SCC 404 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 344] this Court considered the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as also the 1988 Act and inter alia opined that the insurance company would have no liability towards the injuries suffered by the deceased who was a pillion rider, as the insurance policy was a statutory policy which did not cover the gratuitous passenger.
In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha [(2007) 9 SCC 263 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 443] it was held: (SCC p. 265, paras 10-11) “10. The deceased was the owner of the vehicle. For the reasons stated in the claim petition or otherwise, he himself was to be blamed for the accident. The accident did not involve motor vehicle other than the one which he was driving. The question which arises for consideration is that the deceased himself being negligent, the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would be maintainable.
11. Liability of the insurer company is to the extent of indemnification of the insured against the respondent or an injured person, a third person or http://www.judis.nic.in 8 in respect of damages of property. Thus, if the insured cannot be fastened with any liability under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the question of the insurer being liable to indemnify the insured, therefore, does not arise.” It was furthermore held: (Jhuma Saha case [(2007) 9 SCC 263 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 443] , SCC pp. 265-66, para 13) “13. The additional premium was not paid in respect of the entire risk of death or bodily injury of the owner of the vehicle. If that be so, Section 147(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act which in no uncertain terms covers a risk of a third party only would be attracted in the present case.” The matter came up for consideration yet again in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal [(2007) 5 SCC 428 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 527] wherein it was observed: (SCC pp. 439-40, paras 13-14) “13. As we understand Section 147(1) of the Act, an insurance policy thereunder need not cover the liability in respect of death or injury arising out of and in the course of the employment of an employee of the person insured by the policy, unless it be a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of a driver, also the conductor, in the case of a public service vehicle, and the one carried in the vehicle as owner of the goods or his representative, if it is a goods vehicle. It is provided that the policy also shall not be required to cover any contractual liability. Uninfluenced by authorities, we find no difficulty in understanding this provision as one providing that the policy http://www.judis.nic.in 9 must insure an owner against any liability to a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place, and against death or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of vehicle in a public place. The proviso clarifies that the policy shall not be required to cover an employee of the insured in respect of bodily injury or death arising out of and in the course of his employment. Then, an exception is provided to the last foregoing to the effect that the policy must cover a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of the death or bodily injury to an employee who is engaged in driving the vehicle or who serves as a conductor in a public service vehicle or an employee who travels in the vehicle of the employer carrying goods if it is a goods carriage. Section 149(1), which casts an obligation on an insurer to satisfy an award, also speaks only of award in respect of such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy). This provision cannot therefore be used to enlarge the liability if it does not exist in terms of Section 147 of the Act.
14. The object of the insistence on insurance under Chapter XI of the Act thus seems to be to compulsorily cover the liability relating to their person or properties of third parties and in respect of employees of the insured employer, the liability that may arise under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of the driver, the conductor and the one carried in a goods vehicle carrying goods. On this plain understanding of Section 147, we find it difficult to hold that the Insurance Company, in the case on hand, was liable to indemnify the owner, the employer Company, the insured, in respect of the death of one of its employees, who according to the claim, was not the driver. Be it noted that the liability is not one arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and it is doubtful, on the case put forward by the claimant, whether the deceased could be understood as a workman coming within the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, on a plain reading of Section 147 of the Act, it appears to be clear that http://www.judis.nic.in 10 the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured in the case on hand.” The said principle was reiterated in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Davinder Singh [(2007) 8 SCC 698 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 664] holding: (SCC pp. 701-02, para 10) “10. It is, thus, axiomatic that whereas an insurance company may be held to be liable to indemnify the owner for the purpose of meeting the object and purport of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the same may not be necessary in a case where an insurance company may refuse to compensate the owner of the vehicle towards his own loss. A distinction must be borne in mind as regards the statutory liability of the insurer vis-à-vis the purport and object sought to be achieved by a beneficent legislation before a forum constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act and enforcement of a contract qua contract before a Consumer Forum.”
19. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the object and purport of the Act being to cover the risk to life of any person, the said decision should be applied in this case also. We do not think that it would be a correct reading of the said judgment as therein National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut [(2007) 3 SCC 700 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 142] has been followed. In Laxmi Narain Dhut [(2007) 3 SCC 700 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 142] a distinction between a statutory policy and a contractual policy has clearly been made out. These decisions, clearly, are applicable to the facts http://www.judis.nic.in 11 of the present case."
(ii) 2009 (2) TN MAC 169 (SC) [Ningamma & Anr. V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.]
17. However, in the facts of the present case, it was forcefully argued by the counsel appearing for the respondent that the claimants are not the `third party', and therefore, they are not entitled to claim any benefit under Section 163-A of the MVA. In support of the said contention, the counsel relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi, (2008) 5 SCC 736; and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi and Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 417.
18. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajni Devi and Others, (2008) 5 SCC 736, wherein one of us, namely, Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha is a party, it has been categorically held that in a case where third party is involved, the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited. It was also held in the said decision that where, however, compensation is claimed for the death of the owner or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua contract, the claim of the claimant against the insurance company would depend upon the terms thereof. It was held in the said decision that Section 163-A of the MVA cannot be said to have any http://www.judis.nic.in 12 application in respect of an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. The decision further held that the question is no longer res integra. The liability under section 163-A of the MVA is on the owner of the vehicle. So a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient, with respect to claim. Therefore, the heirs of the deceased could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-A of the MVA. In our considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decision is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the deceased was not the owner of the motorbike in question. He borrowed the said motorbike from its real owner. The deceased cannot be held to be employee of the owner of the motorbike although he was authorised to drive the said vehicle by its owner, and therefore, he would step into the shoes of the owner of the motorbike.
20.When we apply the said principle into the facts of the present case we are of the view that the claimants were not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the MVA and to that extent the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the said provision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. However, the question remains as to whether an application for demand of compensation could have been made by the legal representatives of the deceased as provided in Section 166 of http://www.judis.nic.in 13 the MVA. The said provision specifically provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made by the person who has sustained the injury; or by the owner of the property; or where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. When an application of the aforesaid nature claiming compensation under the provisions of Section 166 is received, the Tribunal is required to hold an enquiry into the claim and then proceed to make an award which, however, would be subject to the provisions of Section 162, by determining the amount of compensation, which is found to be just. Person or persons who made claim for compensation would thereafter be paid such amount. When such a claim is made by the legal representatives of the deceased, it has to be proved that the deceased was not himself responsible for the accident by his rash and negligent driving. It would also be necessary to prove that the deceased would be covered under the policy so as to make the insurance company liable to make the payment to the heirs. In this context reference could be made to relevant paras of Section 147 of the MVA which reads as follows:-
'147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability- (1) In order to comply with the requirement of this Chapter, a policy of insurance http://www.judis.nic.in 14 must be a policy which-
(a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; or
(b) insurer the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)-
(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily [injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle] or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;
(ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place:
Provided that a policy shall not be required-
(i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of his death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee-
(a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or
(b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or
(c) if its is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or http://www.judis.nic.in 15
(ii) to cover any contractual liability. (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:-
(a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred; (b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand:
Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier.
......
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons.
(iii) Komeravel Gounder vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company [2013 (1) TN MAC 120 (DB)]
8. Deceased Senthilkumar was driving his own Maruthi Car bearing registration No. TN-29-L-1919. It is stated that since the dog suddenly crossed the road from east to west, car swerved to the right side of the road and lost the control and dashed against the tamarind tree on the western side of http://www.judis.nic.in 16 north-south National Highways road and that deceased Senthilkumar met with an accident and sustained fatal injuries.
9. Case of Insurance Company is that owner himself drove the vehicle and that the accident was due to negligence of the owner-cum-driver and therefore, they are not bound to pay separate compensation to the legal heirs of Senthilkumar.
In his evidence, RW1 stated that separate premium was not paid for “personal accident coverage” and Ex.B2 is “Act only” policy. Insurance Company refutes the Claim on the ground that no additional premium was paid to cover personal injuries to the owner-cum-driver. RW1 further stated that since Senthilkumar did not have valid driving licence, compensation for damage to the vehicle was also not paid.
10. Drawing our attention to Ex.B2 and the clause in Ex.B2-Policy, Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned Counsel for Claimants submitted that as per the Policy Condition, in case of death or injury to owner, Insurance Company has to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- and that the Tribunal did not properly appreciate the terms of the Policy. Learned Counsel for Claimants further submitted that accident occurred only since street dog came in front of the vehicle and in order to avoid the same, Senthilkumar swerved the car and the vehicle hit the tree and while so, without properly appreciating the same, Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred http://www.judis.nic.in 17 only due to the negligence of the deceased. It was contended that Tribunal erred in arriving at the conclusion that Policy does not cover Personal Liability. In support of his contention, learned Counsel placed reliance upon New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kendra Devi, 2008 (1) TN MAC 67 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 490. ....
26. Under “Act only” policy, the liability to third party alone is unlimited. Under the “Comprehensive Insurance Policy' the owner can claim reimbursement of entire amount of loss or damage suffered up to the estimated value of the vehicle calculated according to the Rules and Regulations. So far as occupants of the vehicle are concerned, separate premium has to be paid on the amount of liability undertaken by the Insurance Company. So far as the owner of the Car is concerned, there is no provision to pay premium for paying compensation to him in case he met with an accident on his own negligence.
27. As pointed out earlier, as per Section 147(2)(b) of M.V. Act, a statutory liability fixed in respect of damage to vehicle by any third party is Rs. 6,000/-. But under Ex.B2- Comprehensive Policy, for any damage, the insured - deceased Senthilkumar had paid premium of Rs. 6,429.81. As per the terms of the contract, the damage to a third party property is not restricted to statutory liability of Rs. 6,000/-, but is unlimited. The same is evident from the following in Ex.B2- http://www.judis.nic.in 18 Policy:
SCHEDULE OF PREMIUM Own Damage Liability Total Own Damage Premium: Total Liability Premium:
Total Premium Special Discount 0.00 Net Premium 6820.00 Service Tax (Incl 342.00 Edu.Cess) Final Premium Rs. 7162.00 Under Section II-1 (i) of the Policy -> Damage to Third Party Property : Unlimited
28. No Fault Liability - Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- under “No Fault Liability”. Challenging the award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for “No Fault Liability”, Insurance Company has preferred C.M.A. No. 1263 of 2007.
29. Mr. K.S. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for Insurance Company contended that when the Tribunal held that cause for accident was the negligence of the deceased Senthilkumar himself, Tribunal ought not to have awarded compensation for “No Fault Liability” under Section 140 of M.V. Act. Contending that Section 140 of the Act is founded on the “fault liability principle”, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Joseph, 2012 (2) TN MAC 18 (FB) : 2012 ACJ 1441, particularly Paragraph No. 9, wherein the Kerala High Court has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi, http://www.judis.nic.in 19 2008 (3) CTC 38 (SC) : 2008 ACJ 1441 (SC).
30. Tribunal has concluded that the accident was due to negligence of the deceased Senthilkumar himself. When the accident was due to negligence of the deceased Senthilkumar himself, legal heirs of the deceased could not have maintained the Claim in terms of Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view that the 3rd Claimant has lost her husband at the age of 21 years and Claimants 4 & 5 have lost the love and affection of their father at the very young age, we are not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the Appeal - C.M.A. No. 1263 of 2007 preferred by the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed."
(iv) Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Jhma Saha & Others 2007 (2) TNMAC 56 "10. The deceased was the owner of the vehicle. For the reasons stated in the claim petition or otherwise, he himself was to be blamed for the accident. The accident did not involve motor vehicle other than the one which he was http://www.judis.nic.in 20 driving, the question which arises for consideration is that the deceased himself being negligent, the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would be maintainable.
11. Liability of the insurer-Company is to the extent of indemnification of the insured against the respondent or a injured person, a third person or in respect of damages of property. Thus, if the insured cannot be fastened with any liability under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, the question of the insurer being liable to indemnify insured, therefore, does not arise. "
(v) Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Premlatha Shukla and others [2007] 6 MLJ 669 " 10. The insurer, however, would be liable to re-
imburse the insured to the extent of the damages payable by the owner to the claimants subject of course to the limit of its liability as laid down in the Act or the contract of insurance. Proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, is therefore, sine qua non for maintaining an application under Section 166 of the Act."
(vi) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi, [(1998) 1 SCC 365] http://www.judis.nic.in 21 " 3. It follows that the insurer cannot be held liable on the basis of the above policy in the present case and, therefore, the liability has to be of the owner of the vehicle. However, we find that the High Court, without assigning any reason, has simply assumed that the owner of the vehicle was not liable and that the insurer alone was liable in the present case. This conclusion, reached by the High Court, is clearly erroneous. The liability of the insurer arises only when the liability of the insured has been upheld for the purpose of indemnifying the insured under the contract of insurance. There is, thus, a basic fallacy in the conclusion reached by the High Court on this point."
8. Per contra Mr.M.Saravanan, learned counsel for the respondents by placing reliance on the decisions of 2009 (2) TN MAC 169 (SC) [Ningamma & Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.] and 2016 (1) TN MAC 170 (FB) (MP) [Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Sanju Bai & Others] would argue that the Tribunal on proper appreciation of materials and law had rightly held that the appellant is liable to pay compensation, which does not warrant interference of this Court.
9. In our considered opinion, the judgments referred by the learned http://www.judis.nic.in 22 counsel for the respondents have no application to the facts of this case for the reason that in the instant case, the claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but the above judgments arose out of the award passed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
10. In the case on hand, according to the appellant, the claimant is an occupant of a private car and is not a third party. Indisputably, the claimant while driving the car, swerved the vehicle on seeing buffalo which suddenly crossed the road, but unfortunately, the vehicle dashed against a tamarind tree. No other motor vehicle has been involved in this case. Thus, the accident did not involve any other motor vehicle other than the one in which the claimant was driving.
11. The scheme and object of the Motor Vehicles Act has been extensively considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in the decisions referred supra. Keeping in view the principles laid down therein and considering the undisputed facts of this case, we hold that the impugned Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the Appeal filed by the Insurance Company deserves to be allowed.
http://www.judis.nic.in 23
12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The award and decree dated 30.04.2008 made in M.A.C.O.P.No.320 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Judge, Tenkasi is set aside. No costs.
[M.K.K.S.,J] & [V.B.S.,J] 13.11.2017 Index :Yes/No. Internet:Yes/No. rns http://www.judis.nic.in 24 K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J and V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J.
rns To
1.The Additional Sub Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tenkasi.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
C.M.A(MD)No.125 of 2009 & M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 13.11.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in 25 Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1428 of 2017 2017 (2) TNMAC 674 (DB) http://www.judis.nic.in 26 Before going into the issue, let this court consider the judgments of the learned counsel for the respondents.
http://www.judis.nic.in