Dismissed

The Branch Manager v. Devaraj

Madras HC10 Mar 2016CMA/2682/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an insurance company's appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. Upholding the Tribunal's finding that the injured loadman was an employee covered under the policy, the Court directed the insurer to pay the awarded compensation and interest for injuries sustained in a goods vehicle accident.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed. Insurance Company directed to deposit entire award amount with accrued interest to the Tribunal.

The Branch Manager Vs Devaraj — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

CORAM:

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶4

The Branch Manager
Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Race Course Road
Coimbatore. ... Appellant/ 2 nd Respondent
Vs.
1. Mr. Devaraj
S/o. Palanisamy
Ramanathapuram
Karuvalur, Avinashi. ... Respondent/ Petitioner
2. Mr.S. Kandasamy
S/o. Sigamani Gounder
No.5/86-B Main Road
Karuvalur, Avinashi.
- set exparte. ..2nd Respondent/1 st Respondent

¶5

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2009 made in M.C.O.P No.509 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruppur.

¶6

The Insurance Company has come up with this appeal challenging the liability and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶7

It is a case of injury. On 12.04.2006, when the claimant was travelling as a loadman, in a Eicher van bearing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Registration No. TN 40 B 1234, from Avinashi to Karuvalur

¶8

Road, near N.R. Rice Mill at Velliampalayam, the van got capsized since it was driven in a rash manner. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained fracture on his left hip, left sacrum, left hand, right ischiopubic ramus and grievous injuries all over the body. He was taken to Dr. Balachandar Hospital, Avinashi and then shifted to Richmond Hospital, Coimbatore and was admitted as inpatient, from 13.04.2006 to 29.04.2006. FIR was registered against the driver of the van. The injured claimant filed a claim for compensation for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

¶9

The Tribunal, based on the oral evidence of the witnesses, the F.I.R. and also taking note of the fact that the driver of the van was having valid driving licence to drive the van, came to the conclusion that the driver of the van was responsible for the accident and consequently liability was fixed on the appellant Insurance Company, being the Insurer of the van.

¶10

Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal granted the following amounts as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum:-

¶11

Sl.No Heading Amount awarded
by the Tribunal
1 Loss of income Rs. 2,44,800.00
2 Pain and Sufferings Rs.
5,000.00
3 Medical Expenses Rs. 43,450.00
Total Rs. 2,93,250.00

¶12

Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would contend that more than five persons have travelled in the goods vehicle and hence the Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. That apart, in terms of Sections 147 and 148 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the doctrine of payment of compensation to persons who travel in goods vehicle, does not arise. As Section 147 does not envisage payment of compensation to the passenger of a goods vehicle and when once there is no coverage of payment, the question of recovery does not arise. The victim of the accident, injuries sustained are not in dispute and the only dispute is that the claimant has travelled in a goods vehicle, which he is not entitled to do. The Tribunal has also erred by awarding an exorbitant compensation for the simple injuries sustained by the claimant, which is also questioned by the Insurance Company.

¶13

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

¶14

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the injured was working as a loadman and hence was travelling in the van along with the goods. Due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident, he is unable to continue his work as a loadman. He further submitted that considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation, which is just and reasonable and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶15

In the counter filed by the Insurance Company, it has been stated that four persons have been travelling in the vehicle and on enquiry, the Tribunal has rendered a finding that there were two persons in the vehicle namely the driver and the claimant and that due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, the driver caused the accident and in that accident the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. Taking note of the evidence of Dr. Senthil Kumar, PW-3, who has assessed the percentage of disability at 33.6 % and also Ex.R1, it is found that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal and warrants any interference. Although Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel pointed out the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited, Dharmapuri Town vs. Nagammal and 2 ors., reported in 2009 (1) CTC 1, stating that Section 147 does not envisage coverage of liability in respect of passenger in goods vehicle, the Full Bench has held that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baljit Kaur's case, the Appellate Court can decide the doctrine depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. However, Mr. Ma.Pa. Thangavel, learned counsel appearing for the claimant has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Samrat vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2013 (1) TN MAC 15 (SC), wherein, it is clearly stated that there can be no iota of doubt that the policy relates to the insured and it covers six employees. In this case, since the claimant is the sole employee and only the driver and the employee were travelling in the goods carriage at the time of accident, this Court is of the view that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

¶16

In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest at 7.5% per annum awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount together with accrued interest, less the amount already deposited, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.509 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, within a period of eight weeks weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the Tribunal shall pay compensation to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ claimant in the form of a crossed Account Payee Cheque,

¶17

favouring only the claimant and it should not be issued in favour of any other person/Company. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is also closed.

¶18

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
avr
To :
The Additional Subordinate Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Tiruppur.
+1cc to Mr.B. Gopalan, Advocate, S.R.No.16185
+1cc to M/s. Ma.P. Thangavel, Advocate, S.R.No.15812
Copy to: The Section Officer,
VR Section, High Court, Madras.
AK(CO)
EU(18/05/2016)
C.M.A.NO.2682 of 2011
and
M.P. No. 1 of 2011

¶19

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

The Branch Manager v. Devaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Devaraj

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

R.Shankar Vs G.Natarajan

R.Rajendran Vs v.Subramani

The United India Insurance Vs Radhamani W/O. Samiyappan

Shankar Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S.Siri Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S.Vijaya Vision

Bhopal Reddy Vs P.Settu