Madras High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs K.Vaamundi on 21 August, 2017
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.08.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
C.M.A(MD)Nos. 613 of 2012 and 287 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 of 2012 and 1 of 2013
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.6971 of 2017
C.M.A(MD)No. 613 of 2012
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
12-A, Kovai Road,
P.L.A. Building 2nd Floor,
Karur. ... Appellant / Respondent No.2.
Vs.
1.K.Vaamundi ... Respondent No.1/ PetitionerNo.1
2.V.Desingu ... Respondent No.2/ PetitionerNo.3
3.V.Paarivallal ... Respondent No.3/ PetitionerNo.3
4.N.Mahalingam ... Respondent No.4/ RespondentNo.1
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 14.12.2011 made
in M.C.O.P.No.311 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
District Judge, Karur.
!For Appellant :Mr.N.Murugan
For R1 to R3 :Mr.Selvakumaran
^For R4 :No Appearance
C.M.A(MD)No. 287 of 2014
1.K.Vaamundi
2.V.Desingu
3.V.Paarivallal ... Appellants /Petitioners
Vs.
1.N.Mahalingam
2.United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
12-A, Kovai Road,
PLA Building, 2nd Floor,
Karur. ... Respondents/ Respondents
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree made in M.C.O.P.No.311 of
2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Judge,
Karur, dated 14.12.2011
For Appellants :Mr.Selvakumaran
For R1 :No Appearance
For R1 :Mr.N.Murugan
:COMMON JUDGMENT
Both the appeals are directed against the judgment dated 14.12.2011 passed in M.C.O.P.No.311 of 2010 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Karur.
2. Since both the appeals arose out of a single Judgment, they will be heard and disposed of by a common Judgment.
3. The case of the claimants in the petition is briefly as follows:-
On 06.11.2009 at about 7.30 a.m., between Renganadhapuram Pirivu road and Kattalai road near Mariyappan Sugarcane garden, the driver of 407 Van bearing registration No. TN-28-D-0797 drove the said van in a rash and negligent manner from South to North and as a result of such rash and negligent driving, the 407 van become upset in the left side of the road, as a result of which, one Chittammal @ Kannammal, who was travelling in the said 407 van as a coolie sustained multiple grievous injuries in her head and all over the body and died on the spot. So, the legal heirs of the deceased filed a petition before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.
4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. On the side of the respondents R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked.
5. On a careful consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,28,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5%. Challenging this award, the appeal in C.M.A.No.613 of 2012 has been filed by the Insurance Company and the appeal in C.M.A.No.287 of 20014 has been filed by the claimants.
6. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in C.M.A.(MD)No.613 of 2012, admitted that he is not disputing the quantum, but he is disputing only the liability. So far as the liability is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the victims were travelling in a goods vehicle unauthorisedly and so, they are not entitled to claim any compensation from the Insurance Company. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision reported in 2008 (3) T.A.C. 12 (S.C) (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kaushalaya Devi and others) and argued that the unauthorised passengers in a goods vehicle are not entitled to claim any compensation from the Insurance Company. In the above said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a person travelling in a truck with vegetable cannot claim any compensation from the Insurance Company.
7.At Paragraph No.11 of the award passed by the Tribunal, it has been rendered as follows:
?11. This Court referred to 2003 ACJ 221-G.Nagendra Devi and others v. Y.Mosses and others, a Division Bench judgment of Madras High Court. The Honourable High Court, referring various citations of other High Courts has held as follows:-
?10. It is clear from the above decisions that the burden is on the insurance company and it has failed to take proper and necessary steps to verify whether the offender has valid licence or not. In other words, the responsibility is on the insurance company to discharge its burden and prove that the driver of the vehicle in question was not having valid driving licence not only before the accident, but also at the time of the accident or he was debarred from holding a valid driving licence. In the light of the above legal position and in the absence of positive steps being taken by the insurance company, we are unable to accept the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal exonerating the insurance company form its liability. We hold that the respondent No.2 insurance company is liable to be set aside?.
This Tribunal, after perusing the oral and documentary evidence is of the view that the second respondent has not proved that the first respondent who had driven the vehicle had no valid driving licence at all be examining the Motor Vehicles Inspector or by summoning the driver who had driven the first respondent's van at the time of accident. It is further established in the cross examination of R.W.1 that except the claimant no other injured filed claim application claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by other passengers who travelled on the date of accident. As such, its Tribunal is of the view that the second respondent is liable to pay compensation to the claimants.?
8.The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in C.M.A.(MD)No.287 of 2014 would submit that the award of the Tribunal regarding loss of income and love and affection is very low and hence, the same may be enhanced.
9.In respect of quantum, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal rightly applied multiplier method and there is no infirmity in that and the compensation awarded under the other heads are also just and reasonable and the same does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court.
10. In view of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the award passed by the Tribunal.
11. In the result, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. The award dated 14.12.2011 passed in M.C.O.P.No.311 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Karur, is hereby confirmed. The appellant/Insurance is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interests and costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already deposited and and on such deposit being made, the appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares as apportioned by the Tribunal, with proportionate interests and costs. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To,
1.The District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karur.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.