Allowed

National Insurance Company v. Latha

Madras HC22 Oct 2021CMA/3259/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed appeals against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The set aside the order and dismissed the petition, holding that the insured vehicle was overloaded with gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle, negating insurer liability.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award set aside; appeal allowed; petition dismissed; appellant permitted to withdraw deposited amount.

National Insurance Company Vs Latha — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 22.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶5

C.M.A.Nos.3259 & 3260 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2014 and C.M.P. Nos. 11699 & 11700 of 2017

¶6

National Insurance Company Limited, No. 37/2E, Salem Main Road, Mettur Dam R.S.P.G. No. 19, Mettur Dam, Salem District - 636 402.

¶7

...Appellant in Both CMAs/2^nd respondent

¶8

Latha

¶9

Sekar

¶10

P.Velu

¶11

...Respondents/Respondents 1 & 3/ Respondents in Both CMAs

¶12

COMMON 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 & 907 of 2010 dated 28.03.2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 2nd Additional District Court, Salem.

¶13

For Appellant : Ms. N.B. Surekha

¶14

For Respondents : Mr. S.P. Yuaraj for R1 R2 Served No Appearance R3 Dispensed with

¶15

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶16

These appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the common award dated 28.03.2014 passed by the

¶17

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

¶18

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem in M.C.O.P. Nos. 906 & 907 of 2010.

¶19

Heard Ms. N.B. Surekha, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. S.P. Yuaraj, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

¶20

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).

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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 & 907 of 2010 are hereby set aside and the Appeal is allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitioners are closed.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

ab/nl

¶31

¶32

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 2nd Additional District Court, Salem.

¶33

Copy to:

¶34

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

¶35

+2ccs to M/s.N.B.Surekha, Advocate, S.R.No.54323 & 54324

¶36

+1cc to Mr.S.P.Yuvaraj, Advocate, S.R.No.54343

¶37

C.M.A.Nos.3259 & 3260 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2014 and

¶38

C.M.P. Nos. 11699 & 11700 of 2017

¶39

PP(CO) SU(23/11/2021)

¶40

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

National Insurance Company v. Latha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Company v. Latha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Owning Vs Kulandaivel Nadar

M.Gajendran Vs Everest Blue Metals

The Branch Manager Vs Umapathy

The Managing Director Vs M.Palaniappan

National Insurance Company Vs Latha

The Manager Vs K.Dhanapal