Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2.The Insurance Company has questioned the impugned award on the ground of liability as well as quantum. The claimant has filed an independent appeal seeking enhancement of quantum of compensation. The accident occurred on 23.01.2010. The claimant was travelling as a pillion rider in the two- wheeler. The vehicle belonging to one Sigiman, who was subsequently arrayed as fourth respondent dashed against the two-wheeler. In the resulting accident, the claimant suffered fractures in his skull and other multiple injuries all over the body. He was an in-patient for a period of 57 days. Disability Certificate certifying that he was having 70% partial permanent disability was marked. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,77,280/- as compensation. Questioning the same, both the Insurance Company as well as the claimant, preferred these appeals.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that though on the date of accident the vehicle belonged to the fourth respondent Sigiman, the vehicle policy did not stand in his name. The policy stood in the name of one Raghu. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the Insurance Company cannot be made liable. This contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company cannot be accepted in view of
Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said provision provides for deemed transfer.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the claimant would place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2003) 3 SCC 97 Rikhi Ram Vs. Sukhrania. This has been followed recently as on 14.07.2017 by the Supreme Court in Firdaus Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Others. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even if the vehicle is transferred to the name of another person the liability of the insurer to pay compensation to the third party shall not cease. The said decisions are squarely applicable to the facts on hand. It is also relevant to mention here that the said Sigiman had adopted the counter filed by the Insurance Company. This would show that both are acted in concert before the Tribunal. I therefore see no merit in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
5.Coming to the question of quantum, it must be seen that out of a sum of Rs.7,77,280/-, a sum of Rs.4,60,080/- has been awarded towards medical treatment alone. The claimant was a young boy, aged about 16 years. He suffered skull fracture. So he lost his earning capacity. Therefore the compensation payable to the claimant will have to be reworked as under:-
6.The compensation payable to the claimant is enhanced from Rs.7,77,280/- to Rs.10,77,100/-. The award dated 25.09.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.530 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge, Dindigul is modified accordingly.
7.The Insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization, and costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, less the amount already deposited, if any. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation, by filing proper application before the Tribunal, less the amount already withdrawn by him, if any. The claimant is directed to pay the Court fee for the enhanced amount, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
8.C.M.A.(MD).No.1114 of 2016 stands dismissed. C.M.A.(MD).No.231 of 2017 is partly allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.
2.The Record Keeper, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.