Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3939 (MAD)

United India Insurance v. Senthilkumar

2013-11-18

C.S.KARNAN

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The claimants have filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.121 of 2001 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge / Fast Track Court No.2, Salem, against the Owner, Insurer and State Transport Corporation, stating that on 26.11.2000 at about 4.45 p.m. the claimants and their minor son aged about 2 years and others were travelling by Maruti Car bearing Registration No.TN-27-H-6567 on the Salem Main Road and at that point of time the driver of the car had driven the vehicle at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Transport Corporation Bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N-1123, as a result, their son Indra Kumar, aged about 2 years and the driver of the Car had succumbed to their injuries, while the others had sustained injuries, hence the claim petition against the owner and insurer. 2. The Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent submitted that the accident had not been committed by the driver of the Car, but the driver of the said Transport Corporation had committed the accident in a negligent manner. The driver of the Car had driven it slowly and carefully observing the traffic rules. The respondent further submitted that 6 persons had been travelling in the Car which is more than the seating capacity, as such there is violation of the policy condition. Further, the driver of the Car did not possess a valid driving licence. 3. In the said accident 7 separate claim petitions have been filed separately and claiming compensation for sustaining grievous injuries and fatal cases. The Tribunal had framed common issues namely: (1) Whether the accident had been committed by the driver of the Car (2) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation and (3) What other permissible reliefs? 4. Common evidences were recorded. On the side of the claim petitioners, 8 witnesses were examined and 26 documents were marked, 2 material evidences were produced. The important exhibits are as follows: F.I.R.; Medical records; Indra Kumar's death certificate; Wound certificate of Kaviya Priya; Wound certificate of Vijayalakshmi; Postmortem certificate of Prakash; Postmortem Certificate of Srinivasan; Wound Certificate of Bhuvaneswari; Wound certificate of Akilandeswari; and two doctors. The material objects are X-rays of Vijayalakshmi on the side of the Insurance Company. The important exhibits are as follows: F.I.R.; Medical records; Indra Kumar's death certificate; Wound certificate of Kaviya Priya; Wound certificate of Vijayalakshmi; Postmortem certificate of Prakash; Postmortem Certificate of Srinivasan; Wound Certificate of Bhuvaneswari; Wound certificate of Akilandeswari; and two doctors. The material objects are X-rays of Vijayalakshmi on the side of the Insurance Company. Two witnesses were examined as RW1 and RW2 and 4 documents were marked namely Copy of the policy of the Car; Payment receipt issued by the Insurance Company and another payment paid by the Insurance Company to M.Selvi. 5. PW1 had adduced evidence stating that she is the mother of the deceased and the 2nd claimant is the father of the deceased Indra Kumar. On 26.11.2006 she and others were coming from Mettur to Salem and at that point of time the State Transport Corporation Bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N-1123 came from the opposite direction at a high speed and dashed against the Maruti Car, as a result, she sustained injuries and her son had expired. 6. RW2 had adduced evidence stating that he is a driver and attached to the State Transport Corporation. On 26.11.2000 at about 4.35 p.m. he had driven the bus bearing Registration No.TN-29-N-1123 from Salem to Dharmapuri and at that point of time a Maruti Car came from the opposite direction after overtaking a lorry, as a result, the driver of the Car dashed against the bus, as such the accident had been committed. RW1 had adduced evidence stating that 7 persons had travelled in the said Car violating the policy conditions and the said Car had been insured with this Company. The seating capacity is only 4 in number. Further, the Insurance Company had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the death of deceased Indra Kumar and another Rs.1,00,000/- for the death of Srinivasan and another Rs.1,00,000/- to M.Vijayalakshmi. 7. On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by them, the Tribunal had come to the conclusions that the driver of the Car had observed that 4 adult persons had travelled in the Car, with minors, as such there was no overloadingof the vehicle. Further, the accident had been committed by the driver of the Car, therefore the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation and the claim against the Transport Corporation is dismissed. Further, the accident had been committed by the driver of the Car, therefore the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation and the claim against the Transport Corporation is dismissed. PW1 further stated that he had an only son and one daughter and the son had expired in the said accident. She also filed another claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.122 of 2001 for compensation for her daughter. 8. The Tribunal had granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Against the said award the Insurance Company had filed the above appeal. The highly competent counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal had erred in fastening the entire liability on the Insurance Company. Further 7 persons had travelled in the Car, as such there is a violation of policy conditions since 4 persons were not allowed to travel in the Car as per permit conditions. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- paid to the claimants under personnel accident benefits, the said amount cannot be deducted for the purpose of awarding compensation. The learned counsel further submitted that the said accident had been committed by the driver of the bus. 9. The very competent counsel for the claimants submit that the F.I.R. has been registered against the driver of the Car since he had committed the said accident. The Car has been insured with the appellant herein. Therefore, the entire liability had been fashionedon the Insurance Company. The compensation amount is not on the higher side. Further, as per the permit condition 4 adult person had been travelling, therefore, the violation of policy condition and permit condition does not arise in the instant case. 10. The very competent counsel for the Transport Corporation submits that the driver of the Car had overtaken the lorry and dashed against the bus. As such, the accident had been committed by the driver of the Car. Therefore, the Tribunal had decided the issues namely negligence and liability in an appropriate manner and awarded the compensation against the Insurance Company. 11. As such, the accident had been committed by the driver of the Car. Therefore, the Tribunal had decided the issues namely negligence and liability in an appropriate manner and awarded the compensation against the Insurance Company. 11. On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on all sides and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and quantum of compensation, since the Tribunal had decided the issues on the basis of documentary fact and oral evidence, as such the impugned award is found to be suitable for execution. The rate of interest is 9% per annum fixed by the Tribunal is unaltered since it is admissible. This Court directed the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest. 12. Now, the claimants are at liberty to withdraw their apportioned share amount with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.121 of 2001, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Salem, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order. 13. In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed in M.C.O.P.No.121 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Salem, dated 26.11.2002 is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.