AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Devadass, J.—As these batch of Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and Civil Revision Petitions arises out of a common road accident and arises out of a common judgment they were grouped together, heard together and are being disposed of together. On 09.12.1993, in a mini lorry persons were taken to attend a political party meeting in Sethur. Near Devathanam Government Primary Health Centre, because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver, the vehicle capsized. One person died and several others sustained injuries. Claims were made. They were granted compensation by the Tribunal. As against that these appeals and revisions were preferred by the insurer of the vehicle. Their details are as under:
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Mini Lorry was overloaded. There were unauthorized passengers. The Mini Lorry driver was not having requisite licence to drive the vehicle. Further, the vehicle has been sold to one Alagarsamy. There is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. In such circumstances, the company can be exonerated.
Heard the learned counsel for the claimants. Respondents 2 and 3 also remained ex parte before the Tribunal.
It is not in dispute that the mini lorry capsized and many got underneath. One breathed his last and many sustained injuries. The finding of the Tribunal is that it was because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the insured vehicle. The claimants are third parties. It is a third party claim. It is not disputed that at the time when the accident took place, the policy was in force.
As regards transfer of the vehicle, said to have been made from third respondent to one Alagarsamy, there is no evidence to show the transfer. Even then, the principle of law is that insurance goes along with the vehicle. Further, as per the Hon''ble Supreme Court''s decision in Mallamma (d) By Lrs. v. National Insurance Company Ltd., in Civil Appeal No. 1391 of 2009, in such circumstances the policy will not lapse even if the vehicle is transferred, the policy also deems to have been transferred.
It is a goods vehicle. The driver did not have endorsement to drive that type of vehicle. It is policy violation. For this the third party claimants cannot be made to suffer. This is a matter inter se between the insured and the insurer. In such circumstances, it is a fit case that ''pay and recovery'' can be invoked (see Nanjappan Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., S. Kandasamy, Rukmani, S. Ponnusamy, S. Saraswathi, ).
In the circumstances, there shall be modification in the awards of the Tribunal to the effect that the appellant shall deposit the entire award amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it is not already deposited. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to proceed in execution as against the vehicle owner, without filing a separate suit. The appellant will have all the remedies available under Order 21 C.P.C. It can also seek remedy as against the vehicle. On the request of the appellant, the concerned Regional Transport Officer shall render necessary assistance. The deposited amount shall be paid to the claimants less amount, if any already received. Accordingly, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.