IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.10.2008
CORAM:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR
C.M.A.No.785 of 1999
............
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office,
3 Big Bazar Street,
Dharapuram. .. Appellant/ 2nd respondent
Vs.
1.P. Veerathal
2. P. Easwaran (minor)
rep. by his next friend
and mother P. Veerathal
3. P. Selsvaraj .. Respondents/petitioners/
first Respondent
Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 . C.P.C. against the award and decree dated 22.7.1997 in MCOP No. 592 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ( Sub Court, ) Dharapuram.
For Appellant : Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan
For Respondents : No Appearance R1 to R3
--------
JUDGMENT
The United India Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 22.7.1997 in MCOP No. 592 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ( Sub Court, ) Dharapuram.
2. The respondents have been served. However, there is representation on behalf of the respondents.
3. The fatal accident in this case happened on 21.7.1993. The deceased Palanisamy was travelling in the motor cycle as a pillion rider. The said motor cycle was insured with the appellant insurance company under Act only policy. On the death of Palanisamy, the wife aged 38 years and minor son aged 15 years have filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- but restricted to Rs.5,00,000/-.
4. In support of the claim petition, the wife was examined as P.W.1 and one Palanisamy, the eye witness, was examined as P.W.2. Documents Exs. P1 to P9 were marked. Ex.P1 is the copy of the F.I.R. Ex.P2 is the copy of the post mortem certificate. Ex.P3 is the copy of M.V.I.Report. Ex.P4 is the copy of the charge sheet. Ex.P5 is the copy of the judgment. Ex.P6 is the legal heirship certificate. Ex.P7 is the copy of the sale deed. Ex.P8 is the copy of the sale deed. Ex.P9 is the copy of the driving licence. On behalf of the appellant/ 2nd respondent before the Tribunal, one Devanathan was examined as R.W.1. Copy of the policies were marked as Exs.R1 and R2.
5. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in dispute and the same is confirmed.
6. The only contention raised by the appellant, as is raised before the Tribunal in the counter, is that the policy issued by the 2nd respondent is an act only policy and it does not cover the claim consequent to the death of a pillion rider and therefore, the insurance company is under no obligation to compensate the claimants in this regard. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla vs. – Tilak Singh and others ( 2006 (2) CTC 661) wherein it has been held as follows:-
” In our view, although the observations made in Asha Rani’s case (supra) were in connection with carrying passengers in a goods vehicle, the same would apply with equal force to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also. Thus, we must uphold the contention of the appellant Insurance Company that it owed no liability towards the injuries suffered by the deceased Rajinder Singh who was a pillion rider, as the insurance policy was a statutory policy, and hence it did not cover the risk of death of or bodily injury to gratuitous passengers”.
R. SUDHAKAR,J.,
7. The original policies were verified and found to be an act only policy. In view of the clear statement in Exs. R1 & R2- the insurance policies, the insurance company cannot be made liable to compensate the claimants as the deceased in this case is a pillion rider and the policy does not cover such a claim.
8. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No. 3280 of 1998 is closed. The learned counsel for the appellant/ insurance company seeks permission to withdraw the amount deposited by them and the same is allowed. The claimants are entitled to recover the award amount from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law.
22.10.2008
ra
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
( Sub Court, ) Dharapuram.
Index: No
Internet: Yes
CMA No. 785 of 1999