Madras High Court
Latha vs Sathianarayanan on 22 April, 2019
Author: V.M.Velumani
Bench: V.M.Velumani
1
fIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.04.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.No.1249 of 2019
1.Latha
2.Srigeetha
3.Perianayagi @ Priya
4.Minor.Shalini .. Appellants
(Minor fourth appellant represented by her mother Latha,
the first appellant herein)
Vs.
1.Sathianarayanan
2.Manivannan @ Prabhu
3.The Branch Manager,
The National Insurance Company Limited,
Having Office at Hero Honda Vertical 101 106,
BMC House NI,
Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110 001. .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated
24.11.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.168 of 2013 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, District Court, Karaikal.
For Appellants : Mr.N.U.Prasanna for
M/s.Sai Bharath and Ilan
For R3 : Mr.D.Bhaskaran
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the dismissal of the claim petition by the award dated 24.11.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.168 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Court, Karaikal.
2.The appellants are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.168 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Court, Karaikal. They filed the above said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Natarajan, who died in the accident that took place on 18.05.2013.
3.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motorcycle, the first respondent herein belonging to the second respondent and dismissed the claim petition on the ground that there is no additional premium paid for the pillion rider/deceased.
4.Against the said order of dismissal dated 24.11.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.168 of 2013, the appellants have come out with the present appeal.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the second respondent-owner of the motorcycle has paid extra premium for the vehicle to the third respondent-Insurance Company. On such payment of extra premium, the policy issued by the third respondent is a comprehensive policy, which covers the risk of pillion rider also. The Tribunal erroneously dismissed the claim petition on the ground that policy issued by the third respondent-Insurance Company is an Act policy. The learned counsel for the appellants produced copy of the insurance policy for the period from 26.02.2013 to 25.02.2014 and referred to the amounts paid by the second respondent. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that in view of the additional premium paid, the policy issued by the third respondent is only comprehensive policy and the risk of pillion rider is also covered by said policy. The third respondent is liable to pay compensation as claimed by the appellants and prayed for remanding the matter to the Tribunal to decide whether the policy issued by the third respondent is an Act policy or comprehensive policy and also to decide the amount of compensation payable to the appellants.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
6.The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent- Insurance Company contended that the third respondent-Insurance Company has no objection to remand the matter for fresh adjudication and for filing the insurance copy produced here.
7.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the third respondent-Insurance Company and perused the entire materials on record.
8.In view of the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that additional premium has been paid by the second respondent, owner of the vehicle and policy issued by the third respondent is only comprehensive policy, the award of the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition is set aside and the M.C.O.P. is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration as to whether the policy issued by the third respondent-Insurance Company is comprehensive policy or Act policy. If the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the policy issued by the third respondent-Insurance Company is a comprehensive policy, the Tribunal is directed to decide the quantum of compensation payable to the appellants.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
9.With the above direction, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The M.C.O.P. is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The M.C.O.P. is of the year 2013. The District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karaikal, is directed to dispose of the M.C.O.P., within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs.
22.04.2019
krk
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
To
1.The District Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Karaikal.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
krk
C.M.A.No.1249 of 2019
22.04.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in