The second respondent/Insurance Company in M.C.O.P.No.44 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Namakkal is the appellant herein. The first respondent/claimant filed the above petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an accident. The offending vehicle, namely, Van bearing registration No.TN-48F-8752 was insured with the appellant. The second respondent/owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The case of the claimant was resisted by the appellant herein on the ground that the claimant was travelling in the Van, a goods vehicle. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW1, the Deputy Manager of the Insurance Company was examined as RW1 and the Junior Assistant attached to the RTO Office was examined as RW2, the policy copy has been marked as Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 is the certified copy of the Registration certificate. The Tribunal, on a careful analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, has held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Van. As already pointed out, the Insurance Company took a plea that it was not liable to pay the compensation as the claimant travelled unauthorisedly in the Van meant for carrying goods.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Insurance company should have been exonerated from paying the liability to claimant whereas, the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and seek recovery from the owner of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,53,237/- taking into account that the claimant suffered 25% of disablement on account of the injuries sustained by him. The insurer has not made a challenge as regards the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. Coming to the direction for pay and recovery, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Insurance Policy did not cover the risk to the victim and therefore, the trial Court has erred in directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.
3. The Tribunal relied on the decision reported in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited V.Meena Variyal and Others reported in 2007 (2) TN MAC 9(SC):AIR 2007 SC 1609 and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount. The Tribunal in exercise of its discretion directed the insurer to pay and seek recovery and has awarded a reasonable compensation to the victim. This Court does not find any reason to hold that the Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction incorrectly. The direction exercised by the Tribunal is proper and does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court.
4. In the above circumstances, the appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed and the award of the Tribunal for Rs.1,53,237/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. is confirmed. The insurer shall deposit the balance amount. The claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the award amount lying to the credit of the claim petition. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
28.02.2017 dpq
N.AUTHINATHAN.J.,
dpq To
1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Namakkal.
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
CMA.No.397 of 2017
28.02.2017
http://www.judis.nic.in