Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1308 (AP)

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. MOTTAIAMMAL

2006-10-25

V.DHANAPALAN

body2006
V. DHANAPALAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, preferred by the third respondent Insurance- company before the Tribunal, arises out of the judgment dated 21st July, 1997, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Udumalaipettai in M. C. O. P. No. 207 of 1990. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the claimant before the tribunal, on 14th April, 1990, she along with her son and others, was proceeding to kaaliammal temple in the vehicle bearing registration No. TN-41-1117 and while so, near Devipattinam, the first respondent driver, drove the vehicle belonging lo the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, thereby causing accident on account of which, she and others travelling in the vehicle got injured. It was her case that she was a coolie earning Rs. 350/- per month and she was liable to be paid a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- under various heads. On her side, she herself was examined as P. W. 1 and five exhibits were marked as documentary evidence. ( 3 ) THE first respondent-driver remained ex parte before the Tribunal and the second respondent-owner of the vehicle contested the claim saying that the accident was not caused because of his driver and it occurred only because of the carelessness of the injured claimant. He further contested the claim of the injured claimant with regard to her income and medical treatment taken by her. The third respondent-Insurance Company, by filing its counter, contended that the vehicle involved in the accident was only a goods vehicle and not a passenger vehicle and as such it was not liable to compensate the injured claimant. It also disputed on the aspects of age and income of the injured claimant and with regard to nature of injuries sustained by her. On the side of the respondents, two witnesses were examined and five exhibits were marked. ( 4 ) ON consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal fixed the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle in question an made the Insurance company liable to pay a compensation of rs. 18,000/- with interest at the rate of 2% per annum from the dale of the claim petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by this award of the Tribunal, the third respondent insurance Company has come by way of an appeal before this Court. 18,000/- with interest at the rate of 2% per annum from the dale of the claim petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by this award of the Tribunal, the third respondent insurance Company has come by way of an appeal before this Court. ( 5 ) THE only contention raised by the counsel tor the appellant Insurance company is that the Tribunal has erred in fastening liability on the Insurance Company when admittedly, the injured claimant was traveling in a goods vehicle and she was not covered as per Ext. R-1, copy of insurance policy. ( 6 ) PER contra, Mr. Kalyanandaram, learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant has contended that in the absence of any evidence to prove that the injured claimant was not covered by the policy of insurance, fastening of liability by the Tribunal on the part of Insurance Company has to be upheld. ( 7 ) HEARD both sides. ( 8 ) SINCE no ground has been made out in the appeal and the Counsel for the appellant also has not advanced any argument on the aspects of negligence and quantum of compensation, I am not traversing on those aspects and thus, the point for consideration in this appeal is narrowed down to find out as to whether the Tribunal is right in fastening the liability on the part of the appellant- insurance Company. ( 9 ) ADMITTEDLY, the vehicle in question is a goods vehicle. Also, the first respondent/claimant has deposed that she travelled in the vehicle as a coolie alongwith several others. In support of his contention that there was no coverage for the passengers and hence, the Insurance Company need not be made liable to pay the compensation, the counsel for the Insurance Company has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in the case of National Insurance company Ltd. v. Boomithi Subbhayamma and others wherein the Supreme Court held that it is only the owner of the vehicle who has to make good the compensation. ( 10 ) I have perused the insurance policy of the vehicle in question which is marked as ext. R-1 wherefrom it can be found that coolies/driver/cleaner are also covered under the policy of insurance for which a sum of Rs. 16/- has been paid as premium. ( 10 ) I have perused the insurance policy of the vehicle in question which is marked as ext. R-1 wherefrom it can be found that coolies/driver/cleaner are also covered under the policy of insurance for which a sum of Rs. 16/- has been paid as premium. In that view of the matter, the contention of the counsel for the appellant-Insurance company that the first respondent/claimant is not covered under the policy of insurance, does not have legs to stand and as such, his reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court does not have any relevance on the case on hand. In view of these findings, 1 hold that the judgment of the Tribunal is not infirmed and I have no hesitation in confirming the same. ( 11 ) IN the result, the appeal which is devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. - .