Allowed

The Branch Manager, v. Suseela

Madras HC1 Feb 2024CMA(MD)/461/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance Company appealed against an MAC Tribunal award exceeding policy limits. The High Court held the vehicle owner, as a party to the insurance contract, cannot claim third-party benefits exceeding policy terms. The appeal was allowed, limiting liability to Rs. 2 lakhs.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal order set aside; Insurance Company liable to pay Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation with interest.

The Branch Manager, Vs Suseela — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED : 01.02.2024

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

C.M.A(MD)No.461 of 2017 and C.M.P(MD)No.5065 of 2017

¶7

The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Rai’s Tower, Plot No.2054, 2^nd Avenue,Second Floor, (Next to Senthil Nursing Home),, Anna Nagar, Chennai- 600 040.

¶8

... Appellant/Respondent

.Vs.

1.Suseela

2.Narmatha

3.Narenkumar

(Respondents 2 and 3 are declared as major and the guardianship of R1 is discharged as per order made in C.M.P(MD)Nos.8033 and 8066 of 2018 in C.M.A(MD)No.461 of 2017, dated 08.03.2019)

¶14

... Respondents 1 to 3 / Respondents 1 to 3

¶15

1/7

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

PRAYER:

¶18

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act praying this Court to set aside the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.726 of 2012, dated 21.11.2016, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Principal District Judge),Pudukkottai.

¶19

For Appellant : Mr.K.Gokul For Respondents : Mr.Dani Jeshwanth for Mr.R.Karunanidhi

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

¶22

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarding a compensation of Rs.23,73,800/with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.

¶23

2.The Insurance Company is before this Court on the ground that the claimants are the dependants of the deceased owner of a private car which got capsized due to the negligence of the driver employed by the deceased. The vehicle was covered under Insurance Policy marked as Ex.R1 and it being a 2/7

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

comprehensive policy, the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation is restricted to Rs.2 lakhs, as per the policy. However, the Tribunal ignoring the fact that the deceased is the owner of the vehicle, had construed him as the occupant of the vehicle taking note of the fact that additional premium paid for eight passengers, had awarded compensation, as if considering the owner as a third party.

¶26

3.The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the reference to the Larger Bench by the Honourable Supreme Court in Bhagyalakshmi and others .vs. The United India Insurance Company Limited and another reported in 2009(1) TN MAC 659(SC) has no application in this case, since the fact admitted by the authorities is Insurance Policy is a Private Car Package Policy. The deceased, being the owner of the vehicle, is one of the party to the contract has been bound by the Insurance Agreement. The owner so deceased, had paid the premium, only additional premium to the tune of Rs.100/for personal accident. Therefore the dependants are entitled only for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation, as per the terms of the policy.

¶27

3/7

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

4.A perusal of the evidence let in by the parties and the order of the Tribunal reveals that Muthukumaran, owner of the car bearing Registration No.TN 55-A 9999 was travelling in the car on 01.04.2012 and the vehicle was driven by one Manikandan, near Chocknathanpatti sub-way infront of Reed Foundation, the vehicle got capsized when the driver tried to avoid a ditch in the road and took sudden turn. While the driver sustained injury, the owner of the vehicle Muthukumaran sustained head injury and died on the spot. The claimants are the wife and minor children of the deceased Muthukumaran.

¶30

5.The issue is as to whether the fact of this nature that the owner of the car can take advantage of a third party coverage, on the ground that he should be construed as an occupant of the car and not as the owner of the car?

¶31

6.Common sense and prudent requires to hold that the owner of the car, who is a party to the Insurance Policy cannot be construed as a third party, for the reason that he was not driving the car but was an occupant of the car. The terms of the policy and the insurance make distinct classification between a party to the Insurance Agreement and third party to the Insurance Agreement. Higher

¶32

4/7

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

compensation for a party to the Insurance Agreement, more and above the coverage to be indemnified by the Insurance Company, is against the principles of law. The point for reference in Bagyalakshmi’s case as cited supra is whether such interpretation should be extended to third parties or restricted to the owner of the vehicle, a party to the Insurance Agreement.

¶35

7.Hence, this Court finds that if the claimant is a party to the Insurance Contract, he is entitled for indemnifying to the accident coverage to the extent of premium paid and not over and above that. Therefore the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the appellant Insurance Company is only liable to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation .

¶36

8.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the appellant/Insurance Company has already deposited 50% of the award amount as ordered by the Tribunal and the same has already been withdrawn by the respondents/claimants. If it is so, they are not liable to pay any further amount. Further, the appellant/Insurance Company shall not go for

¶37

5/7

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

recovery of the excess amount from the claimants/respondents.

¶40

9.With the above clarification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed

¶41

of. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶42

[G.J.,J.] [C.K.,J.]

¶43

01.02.2024

¶44

NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶45

vsn

¶46

¶47

1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Judge), Pudukkottai.

¶48

2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶49

6/7

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

/.DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. and C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

¶52

vsn

¶53

JUDGMENT MADE IN

¶54

C.M.A(MD)No.461 of 2017 and C.M.P(MD)No.5065 of 2017

¶55

01.02.2024

¶56

7/7

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Branch Manager, v. Suseela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager, v. Suseela

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

Pon Sumathi, Vs Vellaisamy

The Deputy Chief Engineer Vs M/S.Savio Industrial Structural Corporation

Savithiri Vs Vijayakumar

Venkatesan, Vs Marimuthu(Died)

S. Shanthini Vs G. Raja

Maheswari Vs Kamalam, Orginally Resid at 4