This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the award, dated 10.06.2009 made in M.C.O.P.No.814 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Madurai (Full Additional Charge), (Principal District Judge, Madurai).
2. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 09.01.2003 at about 11.00 p.m., the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-51-5438 from Tiruvarur to Thiruthuraipoondi. When they were nearing the place of occurrence, a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-570A-3367 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler, in which, the deceased was a pillion rider. In the accident, the deceased namely, Selvam had sustained injury and was taken to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital for treatment and inspite of best treatment, he died on 16.01.2003. At the time of occurrence, the deceased was running a hotel called as “Muniyandi Vilas Hotel” and was http://www.judis.nic.in 2/8 C.M.A.(MD)No.415 of 2010 earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. The first petitioner is the wife, the second and third petitioners are the children and the fourth petitioner is the mother of the deceased.
3.The case of the appellant/second respondent before the Tribunal is that apart from the conventional denial, he has specifically contended that the offending vehicle was not insured with the company.
4.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, three witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and three documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. On the side of the respondents, one witness was examined as R.W.1 and seven documents marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.7 and one witness document was marked as Ex.X1. .
5.At the conclusion of the enquiry, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the fifth respondent/first respondent vehicle's driver and regarding the quantum, the Tribunal has fixed the same at Rs.4,41,500/-. The award was passed against the fifth respondent/first respondent as well as the second respondent, who is the appellant herein.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3/8 C.M.A.(MD)No.415 of 2010
6.Challenging the award, the Insurance Company is before this Court, mainly on the ground that on the date of occurrence no policy was in force and that it was not insured with the appellant company.
7.Since the quantum as per the negligence aspects were not disputed by the appellant, we need not go into this aspect. From the manner of accident as spoken by the witnesses as well as the documents, it is seen that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the fifth respondent/first respondent vehicle's driver. There is no reason to differ. With regard to the quantum, the age of the deceased was fixed as 30 on the basis of the documents produced and regarding the income, it has assessed the same at Rs.3,000/- per month and the multiplier '18' was adopted. The loss of income was added with the customary amount. So, I find that this also requires to be confirmed.
8.The main point of attack as mentioned earlier is the coverage. R.W.1 is the Official attached to the appellant company, would say that demanding the production of certain documents, issued notice on 23.12.2003 to the fifth respondent/first respondent demanding insurance certificate and licence etc. But it was returned as “unserved”. Later, issued a memo to http://www.judis.nic.in 4/8 C.M.A.(MD)No.415 of 2010 the claimants to produce those documents and there was no response from the claimants also. Again, on 16.02.2009, another notice was sent to the fifth respondent/first respondent demanding information with regard to the coverage and it was also returned as “unclaimed”. So, according to him, there is no proof with regard to the insurance of the vehicle with their company on the date of the accident. Ex.X1 is the particulars of the extract of the B-Diary Register maintained by the Regional Transport Office, wherein, we find that for the offending vehicle the Cover Note No.123601/09.08.1994 to 08.08.1995 had been issued. On 03.10.2000, the RC as well as permit were transferred in the name of fifth respondent/first respondent. But the particulars with regard to the insurance are not mentioned.
9.It is the evidence of R.W.1 to the effect that documents with regard to the insurance on the date of accident were not available in their Office. So notice was issued to the fifth respondent/first respondent demanding particulars. It appears that even though the fifth respondent has also been represented before this Court by his counsel, he was not in a position to give any information. According to him, subsequent to the sale of the same to the other person and so he is not liable. But from the document, it is seen that on the date of accident namely, 09.01.2003 the fifth respondent/first respondent http://www.judis.nic.in 5/8 C.M.A.(MD)No.415 of 2010 was the owner as mentioned earlier. Only on 12.05.2005, it was sold to one S.Palanivel and RC was also transferred. It is the duty of the fifth respondent to give full particulars about the insurance on the date of accident, but he failed to do so. So, the insurance company cannot be fastened with the liability. Even though this contention has been raised before the Tribunal, a finding has been given up by stating that the coverage is not disputed. But it is not correct on the basis of the records. So that part of the finding is set aside.
10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal directing the appellant to pay the award amount on behalf of the owner is set aside and the owner namely, the fifth respondent herein is directed to pay the entire award amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a and cost within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the major claimants/respondents 1 and 4 are permitted to withdraw their share with proportionate interest as apportioned by the Tribunal by filing proper petition before the Tribunal immediately. The share of the minor claimants/respondents 2 and 3, if have not attained majority, shall be deposited in any one of the Nationalised Bank. The natural guardian of the minor claimants is permitted to withdraw the interest there from once in three months directly from the Bank. http://www.judis.nic.in 6/8 C.M.A.(MD)No.415 of 2010 The amount deposited by the Insurance Company, if any, is permitted to withdraw the same. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.01.2021 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No cp To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional District Court, Madurai (Full Additional Charge), (Principal District Judge, Madurai)
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 C.M.A.(MD)No.415 of 2010 G.ILANGOVAN,J.
cp order made in C.M.A.(MD)No.415 of 2010 11.01.2021 http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8