AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Vimala, J.—This Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the liability to pay the compensation on the ground that:-
(a) The liability in respect of an employee of the owner of the vehicle is neither required to be covered by the Motor Vehicles Act nor it was actually covered under the policy.
(b) The Tribunal ought not to have awarded compensation to the claimant, who himself was responsible for the accident, as he is a tort-feasor; on this ground, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition.
(c) Even u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation cannot be granted to a person, who was at fault.
(d) Section 163A is not applicable, when the income of the claimant is stated to be Rs. 7,000/- per month, i.e., Rs. 84,000/- per annum, whereas Section 163A of the Act would be applicable to a person, whose annual income is Rs. 40,000/- per annum.
In order to appreciate the contentions raised, it is necessary to look into the mode of accident and other relevant details.
The claimant, Raja @ Jayaprakash, aged 28 years, a business man (in paddy and coconut), claiming to be earning a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per month, met with an accident on 01.02.2004 and in respect of injuries sustained, he claimed compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-.
2.1. According to claimant, he was proceeding in his Yamaha motor cycle, bearing Registration No. TN-29-F-4649 from Palacode towards Sompalli, and at that time, one unknown vehicle, which came in the opposite direction, put on the headlight suddenly and thus, the claimant lost control of the vehicle and fell down on the left hand side of the road and sustained injuries. He was traveling for his own purpose and for the purpose of the insured also.
2.2. While he was driving his vehicle, because of the fault committed by the driver of the opposite offending vehicle in putting on the headlight unexpectedly, the claimant (petitioner) fell down and sustained injuries over head, lips, eyebrow, right shoulder and right wrist. There was fracture on the right clavicle bone. On account of the mal-union of the bones, there was 30% disablement.
2.3. The Tribunal quantified the compensation under the following breakup details. Taking the monthly income at Rs. 2,000/- and assuming that 30% of Rs. 2,000/- would be loss, i.e., Rs. 600/- would be the loss, the annual loss was calculated at Rs. 7,200/-; adopting the multiplier of ''18'', total loss of income was calculated at Rs. 1,29,600/-. Awarding a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for pain and sufferings, Rs. 1,000/- for extra nourishment and Rs. 20,000/- for medical expenses, the total amount of compensation was quantified at Rs. 1,52,600/-.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no coverage of insurance, in respect of the injured, being the employee of the owner of the vehicle and as no premium has been paid in respect of the same, the Insurance Company is not liable and the order passed is liable to be set-aside.
It is contended that the claimant, being the person, who invited the accident and as he himself was responsible for the accident, the liability cannot be fastened upon anybody else and therefore, the claim petition itself is not maintainable.
4.1. This contention cannot be accepted, as it is not proved that the claimant invited the accident/that the claimant was responsible for the accident/the claimant was at fault. According to the evidence of the claimant, when he was driving the vehicle, due to the fault committed by the driver of the opposite vehicle, he suffered accident, and according to the claimant, he was not at fault. There is no contra evidence, on the side of the respondents, to disprove the contention that the accident took place, not on account of fault on the part of the claimant, but on account of fault on the part of the driver of the opposite vehicle. Hence, as per the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sinitha and Others, , the owner of the vehicle is responsible to cover the liability u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The second contention is that the policy produced did not cover the liability in respect of employee of the owner. This contention is correct. A perusal of Ex.B-1-Insurance policy goes to show that there is a coverage only for the owner (personal for him), not for anybody else, and the coverage of the owner is only with reference to the personal accident (covering to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-). Therefore, when the coverage is only in respect of the owner towards his personal accident only, the employee of the owner cannot claim that he is also covered under the policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to the claimant, who is the representative of the owner.
The next contention is that as the monthly income is stated to be Rs. 7,000/- per month, i.e., annual income exceeding Rs. 40,000/-, petition u/s 163A of the Act is not maintainable. Though in the claim petition the monthly income is stated to be Rs. 7,000/-, the Tribunal has fixed it only at Rs. 2,000/- per month, which is not under challenge by the claimant. It is common knowledge that the claimant always give exaggerated amount as an income in the claim petition with the greedy idea to get higher amount of compensation. Therefore, the annual income can be taken only at Rs. 24,000/-, as the finding of the Tribunal that the monthly income of the claimant at Rs. 2,000/- per month, is not challenged by the claimant. Therefore, when the annual income is only Rs. 24,000/-, which is within the permissible limit, the claim petition u/s 163A of the Act is maintainable.
In the result, the order passed by the Tribunal is set-aside and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed. It is represented that the Insurance Company has already deposited the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/-, along with proportionate interest and cost and out of which, claimant has already withdrawn 50% of the deposited amount. Hence, the Insurance Company is given liberty to recover 50% of the amount (withdrawn by the claimant) from the owner of the vehicle. The claimant would be entitled to recover the balance amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle.