Dismissed

M/S.United India Insurance Co. v. Tmt.Jeeva

Madras HC21 Jul 2014CMA/480/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed appeals by United India Insurance Company challenging liability and quantum in motor accident death cases. Upholding Sister Iyyapan, it confirmed insurer liability despite fitness or licence defects, allowing recovery from the vehicle owner. Tribunal award of roughly Rs. 3 lakh was upheld.

What did the court decide?

Insurance Company directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest and costs within four weeks to the Tribunal.

M/S.United India Insurance Co. Vs Tmt.Jeeva — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of JudICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.07.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

C.M.A.Nos.480 & 481 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2011

¶6

M/s. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., 38, Anna Salai, Chennai -2. ...Appellant in both the above CMAs (2nd Respondent)) ..vs.. 1.Tmt.Jeeva ... 1^st Respondent in C.M.A.480/2011 (1st Petitioner) 2.Thiru.Velayutham ... 2^nd Respondent in C.M.A.480/2011 (2nd Petitioner) 3.Tmt.Prema .... 1^st Respondent in C.M.A.481/2011 (1st Petitioner) 4.Thiru.Gangaiyan .... 2^nd Respondent in C.M.A.481/2011 (2nd Petitioner) 5.Tmt.P.Nalini .... 3^rd Respondent in both CMAs (1st Respondent)

¶7

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 39 of he Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2010 in M.C.O.P.Nos.455 & 456 of 2005, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Chengleput.

¶8

For Appellant : Mr.J.Chandran (in both the above appeals) For Respondents : Mr.C.Prabakaran (For R1 & R2 – in both the above appeals) JUDGMENT

¶9

Both the above appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the finding rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Chengalput, in and by award dated 27.09.2010 in M.C.O.P.Nos.455 & 456 of 2005, respectively, in fixing the liability on their part to pay the compensation amount and also challenging the quantum of compensation.

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

2.The respondents 1 & 2 herein in both the appeals are the parents of the deceased persons viz., Gavaskar & Uma Shankar respectively. The respondents 1 & 2 herein have filed the claim petitions claiming compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/respectively, for the death of their sons.

¶12

3.It is the case of the claimants that on 19.10.2005 at 11.00 pm, the deceased Uma Shankar (son of the respondents 1 & 2 in C.M.A.No.481 of 2011) was riding a two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-21-M-0069, on the G.S.T.Road, keeping the extreme left side of the road. In the said two-wheeler, the deceased Gavasakar (son of the respondents 1 & 2 in C.M.A.No.480 of 2011) was travelling as a pillion rider. While they were proceeding in the two-wheeler near Rajeswari Vedhachalam Government Arts College in Chengalput, a Mahendra Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-21-A-4923, owned by the 3^rd respondent herein and insured with the appellant herein/Insurance Company came from the opposite direction in a hectic speed on the wrong side and dashed against the two-wheeler and thus, caused the accident. In the said accident, both the rider and biller rider of the two-wheeler sustained multiple grievous head injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the claimants made the claim by filing separate claim petitions claiming compensation as against the owner and insurer of the Tractor.

¶13

4.Before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company had taken a defence that the vehicle did not have ''Fitness Certificate” and in order to prove the defence, they have examined the Motor Vehicle Inspector as R.W.1 and marked his report as Ex.R.1 and in the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector -R.W.1, it has been mentioned as “without F.C”. Hence, according to the Insurance Company, there is a violation to the conditions of the Insurance Policy and as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. But, in spite of that, the Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and then, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Hence, challenging the same, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeals. Without prejudice to the above, the Insurance Company has also challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶14

5.Keeping the submissions made on either side, I have carefully perused the materials available on record and I find that the Tribunal has given the right of recovering the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle, after paying the amount to the claimants. In the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of S.Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2013 (7) SCC 62, it has been held as follows:-

¶15

“Hence, in our considered opinion, the insurer cannot disown its liability on the ground that although

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

the driver was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but before driving light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, no endorsement to drive commercial vehicle was obtained in the driving licence. In any case, it is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. It is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount in the event there has been violation of any condition of the insurance policy.”

¶18

Hence, the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the victim, however, the Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the same from the insured / owner of the vehicle.

¶19

6.So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.3,12,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/respectively, as compensation to the claimants. In my considered opinion, at any stretch of imagination, the amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on the higher side. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed.

¶20

7.In the result, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same are dismissed. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest and costs, as awarded by the Tribunal, to the credit of the above said MCOP, if not deposited so far, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective share amounts, by making necessary applications before the Tribunal.

¶21

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

¶22

Sub Asst. Registrar.

¶23

ssv

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

Copy to

¶26

The Principal District Judge, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribuna), Chengalput.

¶27

The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

¶28

2CCs to Mr.J.Chandran, Advocate, SR 32519, 32517
2CCs to Mr.C.Prabakaran, Advocate, SR 32266, 32519
C.M.A.Nos.480 & 481 of 2011
and
M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2011
Ks [CO]
PSI 03/09/2014

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/S.United India Insurance Co. v. Tmt.Jeeva

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.United India Insurance Co. v. Tmt.Jeeva

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Director Vs Dr. Usha Devi

G. Malini W/O.R. Govindarajan Vs the Chief Controlling Revenue

R. Govindarajan Vs the Chief Controlling

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs v.Amulu

A.Jammal Hussain Vs M.Kalasalingam @ Kanagalingam

A.Kannan Vs the Secretary to Government