Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2977 (MAD)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. L. Venkatesh

2010-07-21

CHITRA VENKATARAMAN

body2010
Judgment :- The Insurance Company is on appeal challenging the liability fixed on the appellant herein for the injury suffered by the claimant. It is seen from the award a sum of Rs.70,100/- was granted to the claimant by way of compensation for the injury suffered. The admitted case of the claimant is that on the date of the accident, i.e., on 31.3.2002, the claimant was traveling towards Bangalore in the mini lorry, which was insured with the appellant herein. At that time, the lorry belonging to the second respondent came in a rash and negligent manner, to avoid any collision, the mini lorry turned to the right side and in that process, it fell into a pit, consequently, the claimant suffered injuries. Thereafter, he was admitted in the Salem Government Hospital and later he took his treatment in Pudukottai Government Hospital as an in patient. Hence, the driver of the mini lorry alone is responsible for the accident. 2. The appellant herein resisted the claim of the claimant as regards its liability. On behalf of the appellant, it was stated that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger, consequently, the policy terms being violated, hence, the appellant could not be mulcted with the liability. 3. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, the claimant shows that he was traveling in a mini lorry only to go to Bangalore to purchase grapes. He pointed out that he had taken the mini lorry on rental to travel to Bangalore, at that time, the accident had happened. Going by the admitted case of the claimant that he was not accompanying any goods in a goods vehicle and traveled only to go to Bangalore to buy grapes, it is evident that the policy condition as regards the goods vehicles stood violated. The First Information Report was lodged by the mini lorry driver, hence, going by the policy conditions, the liability fastened on the appellant, could not be sustained. 4. I agree with the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that for the breach of the policy conditions, the liability has to be borne only by the owner of the mini lorry, namely, the second respondent herein and not by the Insurance Company. Consequently, the Insurance Company, the appellant herein is exonerated from the liability. No arguments were raised as regards the of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Consequently, the Insurance Company, the appellant herein is exonerated from the liability. No arguments were raised as regards the of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Considering the order passed exonerating the insurance company from the liability, the award on other aspects stands confirmed. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the claimant had already withdrawn a sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the Insurance Company. Having regard to the same, it is open to the Insurance Company to proceed against the second respondent to recover the amount realized by the claimant. As regards the balance amount with interest payable, it is open to the claimant to proceed against the second respondent. 6. It is seen from the order passed by this Court dated 3.4.2006, that the Insurance Company was directed deposit the entire deposit amount with accrued interest thereon to the credit of the MCOP. This Court directed the claimant to withdraw a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Having regard to the order passed on 3.4.2006, the Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the amount available with accrued interest thereon. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.3478 of 2006 is closed.