Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2864 (MAD)

National Insurance Company Limited v. Latha

2021-10-22

ABDUL QUDDHOSE

body2021
JUDGMENT : ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J. Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree passed in M.A.C.T. O.P. Nos. 906 and 907 of 2010 dated 28.03.2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 2nd Additional District Court, Sangagiri. 1. These appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the common award dated 28.03.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem in M.C.O.P. Nos. 906 and 907 of 2010. 2. Heard Ms. N.B. Surekha, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. S.P. Yuaraj, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 3. The Appellant Insurance Company has challenged the impugned award questioning its liability to pay the compensation on the ground that the respective deceased were gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle (Insured Vehicle). 4. Admittedly, the deceased who were minors aged four years and two years respectively, were travelling in the insured vehicle which is a Minidor Auto (Insured Vehicle). The aforementioned facts were not disputed by the claimants before the Tribunal. 5. It is settled law that if the accident victims were travelling in a goods vehicle and they were gratuitous passengers, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. However the Tribunal under the impugned award has erroneously failed to appreciate the evidence available on record which would clearly lead to the conclusion that the Appellant Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Admittedly, insured vehicle had only one seating capacity as per the registration certificate which has been marked as Ex. R9 before the Tribunal. The Insurance policy marked as Ex.R3 before the Tribunal also gives insurance coverage only for one person. The Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the aforementioned admitted facts and has erroneously directed the Appellant to pay the compensation. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned common award has to be necessarily set aside by this Court. Accordingly, the impugned common award dated 28.03.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem in M.C.O.P. Nos. 906 and 907 of 2010 are hereby set aside and the Appeal is allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitioners are closed. 7. It is represented by the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company that the Appellant Insurance Company has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal. 906 and 907 of 2010 are hereby set aside and the Appeal is allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitioners are closed. 7. It is represented by the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company that the Appellant Insurance Company has already deposited the award amount before the Tribunal. Since the Appellant has deposited the award amount before the Tribunal, the Appellant Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by them, by filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal.