Allowed

United India Insurance v. K. Maha

Madras HC7 Jan 2021CMA/304/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awards were dismissed. The court directed the insurance company to deposit compensation awards with interest, allowing recovery from the vehicle owner under Section 138 of the Supreme Court's decision in Oriental Insurance Co.

What did the court decide?

The insurance company was directed to deposit the award amounts with interest and is permitted to recover the same from the owners of the insured vehicles.

United India Insurance Vs K. Maha — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

RESERVED ON : 18.12.2020

¶3

PRONOUNCED ON : 07.01.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

C.M.A.Nos.304, 590 of 2010 and 2392 of 2011

¶7

and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2010 & 1 of 2011

¶8

(Through Video Conferencing)

¶9

United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,

¶10

No.38, Third Floor, Anna Salai,

¶11

Chennai 600 002.

¶12

... Appellant

¶13

in all C.M.As./2^nd Respondent in MCOP.NOs.162/2005,185/2005 and 176/2005

vs.

K.Maha

.. 1^st Respondentin

C.M.A.No.304 of 2010/ Petitioner in MCOP.NO.162/2005

¶18

S.Munusamy

¶19

.. 1^st Respondent in

¶20

C.M.A.No.590 of 2010/ Petitioner in MCOP.NO.185/2005

¶21

Ramadoss

¶22

.. 1^st Respondent in

¶23

C.M.A.No.2392 of 2011/Petitioner in MCOP.NO.176/2005

¶24

2.M.Radhakrishnan ... 2^nd Respondent in all C.M.As./1^st Respondent in all MCOPs do

¶25

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

¶26

Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgments and Decrees passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Ponneri in M.C.O.P.Nos.162/05, Dated 02.02.2009, MCOP.NO.185/2005 DATED 09.09.2009 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track court No.4 Ponneri and MCOP.NO.176/2005 DATED 28.02.2011 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sub Judge, Ponneri.

¶27

For Appellants : Mr. D.Baskaran (in all C.M.As.)

¶28

For R1 : No Appearance (in all C.M.As.) For R2 : No Appearance (in C.M.A.590/2010) For R2 : Not Ready in Notice in CMA.No.304/2010 & 2392/2011

¶29

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

¶30

By this common Judgment, all the three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are being disposed.

¶31

These appeals have been filed by the appellant insurance company against the separate judgments and decrees dated 02.02.2009, 09.09.2008 and 28.02.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Ponneri in M.C.O.P.Nos.162, 185 and 176 of 2005.

¶32

By the impugned separate judgments and decrees dated 02.02.2009, 09.09.2008 and 28.02.2011, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petitions filed by the 1^st respondent/claimant in the respective appeal and has awarded a sum of Rs.63,000, 15,000 and 49,000 as compensation to them.

¶33

The case of the appellant-insurance company in these appeals are that admittedly the claimants who are the 1^st respondent in the respective appeals travelled as authorised passengers. It is submitted that they neither travelled as representative of the owner of the goods nor as employees of the owner and since the policy did not contemplate to cover such risks, the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation to them.

¶34

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

¶35

It is further submitted that the policy covered only personal accident cover owner-cum-driver and third party. It is further submitted that the respective claimants who are the 1^st respondent before this Court in the respective appeals were the labourers of the contractor of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board who carried the transformer for E.B. and since seating capacity of the insured auto was only 1+1, there was no question of awarding compensation.

¶36

It is further submitted that as per F.I.R, totally five persons travelled in the insured mini goods carrier which was driven in a rash and negligent driving and therefore the Tribunal ought not have made the appellant-Insurance company liable to pay compensation. In this case, admittedly, the number of persons who travelled in the mini goods carrier were more than the authorised number of persons why could travel as per the Registration Certificate of the insured vehicle. However, that by itself will not mean that the respective claimants were unauthorised passengers. At best, it would mean that there was violation of the policy terms.

¶37

Therefore, there is no harm in directing by the appellant to pay and recover the amount from the owner of the insured vehicle as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanjappan and Others, (2004) 13 SCC 224. Therefore, liberty can be given to the appellant Insurance Company to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the 1^st respondent/claimant and recover the same from the

¶38

owner of the insured vehicle, i.e. 2^nd respondent herein in the respective appeals.

¶39

Therefore, the appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount in the respective appeals together with interest at 7.5% from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit and cost, less any amount already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

¶40

On such deposit, the 1^st respondent/claimant in the respective appeals are entitled to withdraw the same together with interest, by filing suitable applications before the Tribunal.

¶41

The appellant-Insurance Company may proceed to recover the aforesaid amount of compensation from the 2^nd respondent

¶42

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

¶43

owner of the vehicle as per the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶44

In view of the above observation, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of. No cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶47

//True Copy//

¶48

Sub Assistant Registrar

kkd

To:

The Sub Judge,

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

¶53

(Sub Court ) Ponneri.

¶54

2.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Ponneri.

¶55

3.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

¶56

Additional District Judge, Fast Track court No.4 Ponneri.

¶57

Copy to:

¶58

The Section Officer,

¶59

VR Section, High Court,Madras.

¶60

C.M.A.Nos.304, 590 of 2010 and 2392 of 2011

¶61

and M.P.Nos.1& 1 of 2010 & 1 of 2011

¶62

A.SK(13.09.2021)

¶63

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

United India Insurance v. K. Maha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance v. K. Maha

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.Maranayakan Vs the District Collector

D.Venkatesh Vs The Assistant Executive

The Commissioner of Central Vs The Customs, Excise and

United India Insurance Company Vs S.Munusamy

M.Nanjappan Vs M.Dinesh

The United India Insurance Vs Ramadoss