Insurance company appealed against MACT award granting compensation to owner-cum-driver for simple injuries. Court held personal accident cover is contractual and insurer has no statutory liability for simple injuries, allowing appeal.
Original MACT judgment and decree set aside; appellant permitted to withdraw deposited amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.M.A.No.985 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.M.A.No.985 of 2021 And C.M.P.No.5472 of 2021
The Branch Manager, M/s.The IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office at 'Tulsi Chambers', III Floor, No.195, T.V.Swamy Road (West), R.S.Puram, Coimbatore. ... Appellant
Vs.
R.Venkatasamy ... Respondent
Prayer:
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the decree and judgment dated 02.02.2019 passed in M.C.O.P.No.571 of 2017, by the Hon'ble Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Court of Special Subordinate Judge), at Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam For Respondent : Mr.J.Pradeep
1/6
C.M.A.No.985 of 2021
J U D G M E N T
The respondent Insurance Company before the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal is the appellant herein. This appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2019 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Court of Special Subordinate Judge), Krishnagiri, in M.C.O.P.No.571 of 2017.
2.The brief facts of the case is that on 21.09.2009, at about 6.45p.m., the respondent was proceeding in his TVS Star City motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN24-E-6505 in Krishnagiri to Hosur NH7 Road from Krishnagiri to his house at Bolupalli Village bus stop. At that time the rider of the Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN23-2940 came in the same direction and hit behind the respondent's motorcycle, due to which, the respondent sustained injuries.
3.Thereafter, the injured claimant/ respondent filed claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.1 Lakh. After adjudication, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the respondent is entitled
2/6
C.M.A.No.985 of 2021
to a sum of Rs.2,98,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit and proportionate costs and directed the appellant Insurance Company to deposit a sum of Rs.1 Lakh along with interest. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant Insurance Company has filed this appeal.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the claimant is the owner of the motorcycle and he instead of filing claim petition as against the owner of the offending vehicle and its insurer, filed claim petition as against the appellant under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, which is not sustainable one. Though the respondent has paid premium for Personal Accident Coverage, the driver cum owner can claim compensation only in the case of death or loss of limb, however, in the present case, it is only simple injuries and hence, the claimant is not entitled to claim compensation as against the Insurance Company, however, the Tribunal without considering the same, inadvertently, passed the impugned award.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ claimant submitted that the Tribunal after considering all the factual aspects,
3/6
C.M.A.No.985 of 2021
awarded the compensation which is just and reasonable and hence, the impugned judgment warrants no interference.
6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
7.Admittedly, the claimant is the owner of the vehicle. The very same issue was considered by this Court in the decision reported in 2021 ACJ 979 [Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ramesh Babu] , wherein, this Court held that personal accident cover for owner cum driver is contractual in nature and in the absence of any statutory liability of Insurance Company, provisions of Motor Vehicles Act cannot be invoked. Further Section IV – Personal Accident Cover for owner – driver makes it clear that for death – 100 per cent of CSI, for loss of two limbs or sight of two eyes or one limb and sight of one eye – 100 per cent of CSI, for loss of one limb or sight of one eye – 50 per cent of CSI, however, in the present case, it is only injuries, in which, the claimant is not entitled to claim compensation.
4/6
C.M.A.No.985 of 2021
20.12.2023
pri
Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order: Yes/ No NCC: Yes/ No
To
5/6
C.M.A.No.985 of 2021
M.DHANDAPANI,J. pri
C.M.A.No.985 of 2021 And C.M.P.No.5472 of 2021
20.12.2023
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a vehicle owner-cum-driver entitled to claim compensation from insurance company for simple injuries under personal accident cover of Motor Vehicles Act.
Whether advisory opinion passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal relying on Section 166 is sustainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ramesh BabuFollowed¶7
2021 ACJ 979 [Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ramesh Babu]
2 provisions across 1 enactments
The Branch Manager, M/s. The IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited
R.Venkatasamy
M.DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
