C.M.A.(MD) No.1125 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 31.12.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
C.M.A.(MD)No.1125 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.15242 of 2023
The Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
Office at No.63, Rasi Plaza,
West Pradhakshnam Road,
Karur. ...
Appellant
vs.
1.Rajalingam
2.K.Selvam. ...
Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1973, against judgment and decree dated
18.04.2023, made in M.C.O.P.No.304 of 2022 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 10
C.M.A.(MD) No.1125 of 2023
For appellant : Mr.D.Sivaraman
For Respondents : No appearance
*****
J U D G M E N T
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the
Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated
18.04.2023 passed in M.C.O.P.No.304 of 2022 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Karur, on liability issue.
2. Despite the receipt of notice, the respondents neither
appeared in person nor represented through their counsel.
3. The case details as set out in the claim petition are given
hereunder in brief:
On 20.05.2018 at about 9.15 p.m., the claimant/Rajalingam
(M.C.O.P.No.304 of 2022), along with Minor Harish Ragavendra
(M.C.O.P.No.265 of 2019), Saroja (M.C.O.P.No.288 of 2019),
Thangavel (M.C.O.P.No.289 of 2019), Minor Nandhini
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 2 of 10
C.M.A.(MD) No.1125 of 2023
(M.C.O.P.No.326 of 2019), Devi (M.C.O.P.No.327 of 2019),
Lakshmi (M.C.O.P.No.328 of 2019) and other four passengers
travelled in Toyota Qualis car bearing Registration No.TN-63-
D-6226. While the said car was proceeding from downward
direction from Kodaikanal-Palani main road, near the 3rd hairpin
bend, the driver of the Qualis car drove the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and hit on the road side bridge. Due to the said
impact, the abovesaid persons, who travelled in the said car,
sustained injuries. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the said Qualis car, the accident happened. The first
respondent therein/owner of the car and the second
respondent/insurer of the said car are liable to pay the
compensation.
4. The claim petition averments were counteracted by filing
counter on behalf of the insurance company to the effect that the
petitioner is put to strict proof of the occurrence and other details.
Only eight persons can travel in the car, but at the time of accident,
13 persons travelled including the driver of the vehicle, which is in
violation of conditions of insurance policy and Motor Vehicles Act.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 3 of 10
C.M.A.(MD) No.1125 of 2023
Therefore, the claimant is not entitled to claim any compensation
from the second respondent therein/insurance company.
Furthermore, as the policy is a ‘liability only policy’ and the premium
was paid only to cover the risk, third parties and the injured, who
travelled in the vehicle, are not entitled to claim any compensation
from the second respondent therein/insurance company. If at all the
claimant is entitled to claim from the first respondent therein/owner
of the vehicle, age, occupation, income of the claimant ought to be
proved by him.
5. During trial, common evidence was let in in M.C.O.P.No.
265 of 2019 and common award was passed.
6. At trial, on the claimants’ side, seven witnesses were
examined and 33 documents were marked. On the second
respondent/insurance company's side, Administrative Officer of the
second respondent Mr.Moovendan was examined as R.W.1. Ex.R1
is the copy of the insurance policy of the vehicle (Registration
No.TN-63-D-6226). Disability certificates of the claimants are
Exs.C1 to C5.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 4 of 10
C.M.A.(MD) No.1125 of 2023
7. The Tribunal, upon consideration, held that the additional
premium has been paid for the occupants of the vehicle, the
insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the injured
persons and directed the second respondent therein/insurance
company to pay a sum of Rs.1,47,650/- to the claimant herein.
8. Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/insurance company would, vehemently, contend that
though the policy, being ‘act policy’ and the seating capacity of the
vehicle is only eight, the owner, permitting more than seven
passengers (except driver), violated the policy conditions. Because
of the same, the insurance company is not liable to honour the
policy and to pay compensation to the injured claimants.
9. To buttress his arguments, the below said judgments were
referred to:
1. Dr.T.V.Josh vs. Chacko P.M. and others reported in
2001 ACJ 2059;
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Thilak
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 5 of 10
C.M.A.(MD) No.1125 of 2023
Singh and others reported in 2006 (4) SCC 404;
3. Oriental Life Insurance Company vs Suthakaran
K.V. and others reported in 2008 ACJ 2045;
4. United India Insurance Company Ltd., vs.
M.Lakshmi and others (Civil Appeal No.6659 of
2008(SC), dated 14.11.2008);
5. New India Assurance Company Ltd., vs.
S.Krishnansamy and others reported in 2015 (1)
TNMAC 19 (DB);
6. United India Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Sathish
kumar and another reported in 2019 (1) TNMAC 332.
10. The main grievance of the appellant/insurance company
is that the policy is a ‘liability only policy’ and only 7+1 persons can
travel in the Qualis car, as per Registration Certificate details. At
the relevant point of time, more than eight persons travelled in that
car and it is a clear violation of policy. As they are unauthorised
persons, the insurance company is not liable to pay any
compensation to the claimants.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 6 of 10
C.M.A.(MD) No.1125 of 2023
11. A thorough perusal of Ex.R1/policy indicates that it is a
'liability only policy' and the seating capacity of the said car is eight
persons (7+1 (driver)). On a deep perusal of all the claim details
and the connected records due to the accident, it seems that seven
persons sustained injuries and they filed claim applications claiming
compensation for the injuries sustained on account of the accident,
as mentioned supra.
12. Insurance policy is a form of contract. The parties to the
contract are governed by terms and conditions of the policy. In the
policy, bottom of the first page, under the head ‘personal accident
cover details’, an amount of Rs.500/- is collected for personal
accident cover for the owner/driver and under the head unnamed
passengers, eight persons have been covered, for which the
premium of Rs.50/- is collected. In all, Injured are seven in number.
Therefore, it should not lie in the mouth of the insurance company
that the policy is a ‘liability only policy’ and the insurance company
is not liable to honour the policy.
13. Based on the aforesaid discussions and observations, as
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 7 of 10
C.M.A.(MD) No.1125 of 2023
the policy covers eight persons, liability is fastened on the
insurance company to pay compensation to the claimant by the
Tribunal, this Court finds no valid reason to upset the findings of the
Tribunal.
14. In the result,
(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(ii) The Insurance Company/appellant is directed to deposit
the compensation amount (awarded by the Tribunal) i.e., Rs.
1,47,650/- (less the amount already deposited if any) together with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim
petition till the date of deposit and costs to the credit of
M.C.O.P.No.304 of 2022 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal / Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Karur, within a period of
eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
(iii) On such deposit being made, the claimant/first
respondent, on appropriate application, is permitted to withdraw the
award amount along with interest and costs, after adjusting the
amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary application
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 8 of 10
C.M.A.(MD) No.1125 of 2023
before the Tribunal.
31.12.2024
NCC : Yes/No (7/7)
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
apd
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Karur.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
R.KALAIMATHI,J
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 9 of 10
C.M.A.(MD) No.1125 of 2023
apd
Pre-delivery order made in
C.M.A.(MD) No.1125 of 2023
31.12.2024
(7/7)
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 10 of 10