Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1416 (MAD)

TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Muthuchamy

2015-03-11

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2015
Judgment :- 1. The appellant is the Insurance Company. The first respondent is the person who got injured in the road accident while he was travelling in a minidor Auto bearing Registration No.TN-65-D-9411 that is covered by the insurance policy issued by the appellant Insurance Company. The first respondent filed MCOP No.583 of 2009 claiming a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries suffered by him. On 10.10.2008, as a dealer of milk pockets, he travelled in a minidor van owned by the second respondent. He was sitting on the backside of the vehicle holding the milk pockets. When the vehicle was proceeding from Madurai to Avarangulam, Virudhunagar District, the Minidor Auto capsized due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. The claimant was admitted in the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and thereafter he was in the G.K. Hospital, Madurai for more than 40 days. The left wrist along with his fingers, were removed. He was aged 33 years at the time of accident. Further details are not necessary since this appeal is only relating to liability. 2. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.6,13,019/- with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition. 3. The appeal is filed questioning liability alone. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the defence set up by the appellant Insurance Company in the MCOP. He also submitted that no person other than the driver can travel in the said vehicle and the risk in respect of any occupant other than the driver cannot be covered by insurance in the absence of any provision in the vehicle for the carriage of such occupant. According to him, he was a gratuitous passenger and hence he is not covered by the insurance policy in the load auto and the only person covered by the policy is the driver and no other person can claim any compensation for the accident. 4. The learned counsel for the claimant took me through the award of the Tribunal and has pointed out that the issue was specifically answered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has relied on 2 documents ie., Ex.R2 and Ex.R3, which clearly shows that 2 persons including the driver are covered by the policy issued by the appellant. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 6. The issue lies in a narrow compass. The Tribunal has relied on 2 documents ie., Ex.R2 and Ex.R3, which clearly shows that 2 persons including the driver are covered by the policy issued by the appellant. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 6. The issue lies in a narrow compass. It has to be seen as to whether the Tribunal has considered the defence of the appellant Insurance Company as stated above. 7. In fact, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimant, the issue is squarely answered by the Tribunal by relying on Exs.R2 and R3. The relevant passage from the award of the Tribunal is extracted above: “TAMIL” 8. I have perused Ex.R2-Proposal Form for Commercial Vehicle Insurance, wherein it is stated that the licensed carrying capacity including driver, is 2 in all. I have also perused Ex.R3-Insurance Policy. In Ex.R3 the appellant collected the following premiums: Basic Rs.1,530.00 Add: Compulsory PA cover for Owner-Driver Rs.2,00,000 Rs. 100.00 Add: Legal liability to person employed for loading-unloading Rs. 25.00 B. Total Liability Premium Rs.1,655.00 Comprehensive Premium (A+B) Rs.1,655.00 Net Premium Rs.1,655.00 Add: 12.36% Service Tax Rs. 204.56 TOTAL PREMIUM Rs.1,860.00 9. The appellant collected premium for a loadman also besides the driver. In this case, the claimant is nothing but a loadman, holding the milk pockets in the back side of the Load auto. Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 clearly shows that the policy covers one more person other than the driver and the other person also is entitled to insurance cover in the event of accident. Hence the claimant cannot be considered to be a gratuitous passenger as he is also covered by the insurance policy. Hence, the first respondent / claimant is entitled for the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in dispute and hence the same is confirmed. 10. In the result, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 11. It is stated that the Insurance Company has already deposited the entire award amount. Hence, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same.