Madras High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Ramiah Thevar on 12 November, 2007
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G.Rajasuria
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12/11/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A.(MD)No.1367 of 2006 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 of 2006 and 1 of 2007 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 924A, Main Road, Kovilpatti. ... Appellant Vs. 1.Ramiah Thevar 2.Muthusamy ... Respondents Prayer Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Decree and Judgment dated 08.07.2004, passed in M.C.O.P.No.177 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Tenkasi. !For Appellant ... Mr.R.S.Ramanathan ^For Respondent No.1 ... Mr.S.Ramesh Alias Ramaiah For Respondent No.2 ... Exparte before the Tribunal :JUDGMENT
This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2004, passed in M.C.O.P.No.177 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Tenkasi.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is relating to the liability of the insurance company and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, vide judgment dated 08.07.2004, to a tune of Rs.1,64,531/-(Rupees One Lakh Sixtyfour Thousand Five hundred and Thirtyone only) on the following sub- heads:
(i) For Loss of Income - Rs.1,29,600.00
(ii) For Medical Expenses - Rs. 24,931.00
(iii) For Pain and sufferings - Rs. 5,000.00
(iv)For Nutritious Food - Rs. 5,000.00
--------------
Total - Rs.1,64,531.00
--------------
4. The quintessence of the grounds of appeal as stood exposited from the records would run thus:
The Tribunal had not taken into consideration the fact that the driver of the auto at the relevant time of accident was not having relevant badge to drive the auto, which is a public carrier, even though he was having licence to drive motor vehicle. The compensation assessed is on the higher side.
5. However, the learned counsel for the appellant, while arguing the matter laid stress only upon the ground that the Tribunal was not justified in simply awarding compensation by making the insurance company jointly and severally liable along with the owner of the vehicle and no liberty was given to the insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimant and recover it from the owner.
6. During trial, on the side of the claimants P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to 11 were marked and on the side of the respondents R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R.1 to R.5 were marked.
7. Point for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal after giving the finding that the driver was not having the relevant badge, was justified in making the insurance company jointly and severally liable along with the owner of the vehicle without giving liberty to the insurance company to recover the amount from the owner after paying it to the claimants?
8. Point: The perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal would clearly show that there is a finding by the Tribunal placing reliance on Ex.P.3 to the effect that the Driver of the vehicle had licence to drive auto but he had no badge. However the Tribunal had fallen into error by assuming as though there was nothing to show that driver of the offending vehicle should have badge as per law. In my considered opinion the law points need not be proved by examining officials as such. The Tribunal observes that the official concerned of the Transport Department was not examined so as to prove that the auto driver was not permitted to drive the vehicle without badge. The Tribunal is expected to know the law, for which no official is expected to appear and depose to that effect. In view of the clear finding that the driver of the auto had no badge to drive the auto, there is violation of policy, for which the insurance company cannot wriggle out from its joint and several liability to pay the compensation to the claimants. Hence, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co., Ltd., vs. Swaran Singh and Others reported in 2004 ACJ 1 the Insurance company is directed to pay the compensation to the petitioner, with liberty to get it recovered directly from the owner of the vehicle without initiating separate suit but by simply executing this order.
11. In the result, the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. However, further direction is issued to the effect that the insurance company shall pay the amount to the claimants and thereafter get it recovered directly from the owner of the vehicle without initiating separate suit but by simply executing this order. In other aspects the award shall hold good. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) Nos.1 of 2006 and 1 of 2007 are closed. No costs.
sj To
1.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal Subordinate Judge), Tenkasi.