{"id":167463,"date":"2011-02-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-sundari-on-1-february-2011"},"modified":"2019-01-26T17:06:06","modified_gmt":"2019-01-26T11:36:06","slug":"the-divisional-manager-vs-sundari-on-1-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-sundari-on-1-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"The Divisional Manager vs Sundari on 1 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Divisional Manager vs Sundari on 1 February, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 01\/02\/2011\n\nCoram\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN\n\nC.M.A (MD) No.122 of 2005\nC.M.A (MD) Nos.123 of 2005\nC.M.A (MD) No.124 of 2005\nand\nC.M.P (MD) Nos.1036, 1038 and 1040 of 2005\n\nThe Divisional Manager,\nUnited India Insurance Company Limited,\nJawans Bhavan,\nSivakasi.\t\t\t\n\t\t\t   .. Appellant in C.M.A.No.122\/2005\n\nVs\n\n1.Sundari\n2.Selvi Amalamary\n3.John Livington\n4.Alochanaimary\n\n5.Sri Murugan Paper Mills (P) Limited,\n  189\/1B, P.A.P.Colony,\n  Sivakasi.\n\n\t\n6.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,\n  Rep. by its Managing Director,\n  Madurai Division No.V,\n  Madurai Road,\n  Virudhunagar.\t .. Respondents in C.M.A.No.122\/2005\n\nThe Branch Manager,\nUnited India Insurance Company Limited,\nSivakasi.\t\t\n\t\t    .. Appellant in C.M.A.Nos.123 & 124\/2005\n\n1.K.Balamurugan\n\n2.Sri Murugan Paper Mills (P) Limited,\n  189\/1B, P.A.P.Colony,\n  Sivakasi.\n\n\t\n3.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,\n  Rep. by its Managing Director,\n  Madurai Division No.V,\n  Virudhunagar.\t\n\t\t\t\t .. Respondents in C.M.A.No.123\/2005\n\n1.P.Pandi\n\n2.Sri Murugan Paper Mills (P) Limited,\n  189\/1B, P.A.P.Colony,\n  Sivakasi.\n\n\t\n3.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,\n  Rep. by its Managing Director,\n  Madurai Division No.V,\n  Madurai Road,\n  Virudhunagar.\n\t\t\t\t .. Respondents in C.M.A.No.124\/2005\n\nCommon Prayer\n\nAppeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act\nagainst the fair and decreetal award made in M.C.O.P.Nos.190 of 2003, 191 of\n2003 and 193 of 2003 respectively dated 31.03.2004 on the file of the Motor\nAccident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track\nCourt) Virudhunagar).\n\n!For Appellant\t\t ... Mr.J.S.Murali\n(in all C.M.A's)\n^For RR 1 to 4\t\t ... Mr.P.Santhosh Kumar\n(in C.M.A.No.122\/05)\nFor R - 6\t\t ... Mr.M.Kasivishvanathan\t\n(in C.M.A.No.122\/05)\nFor R - 1\t\t ... Mr.P.Santhosh Kumar\n(in C.M.A.No.123 & 124\/05)\nFor R - 3\t\t ... Mr.M.Kasivishvanathan\t\n(in C.M.A.No.123 & 125\/05)\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\t\n<\/pre>\n
Challenge is made in these memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeals to
\nthe award of Rs.2,90,800\/-, 44,975\/- and 68,230\/- dated 31.03.2004 and made in
\nM.C.O.P.Nos.190, 191 and 193 of 2003 respectively on the file of the Motor
\nAccident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge\/Fast Track
\nCourt), Virudhunagar.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The second respondent\/United India Insurance Company Limited in the
\nclaim petition has preferred these appeals before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.Totally eight claim petitions viz., M.C.O.P.Nos.189, 190, 191, 192, 193,
\n194, 195 of 2003 and 45 of 2004 were emerged out of a Road Traffic Accident
\nalleged to have been taken place on 14.07.2002 at about 07.20 a.m., at
\nVirudhunagar to Sivakasi road involving two vehicles Viz., the Van bearing
\nRegistration No.TN 67-D-3834 and the Transport Corporation Bus bearing
\nRegistration No.TN 67-N-0047. These claim applications were clubbed together and
\na common evidence was recorded in the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.192 of 2003
\nand after the completion of trial, a common award was pronounced on 31.03.2004.
\nThese three appeals Viz., C.M.A.Nos.122 to 124 of 2005 are directed against the
\naward passed in respect of the claim petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.190, 191 and 193
\nof 2003.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.The facts which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of the appeals
\nare re-capitulated as under:\n<\/p>\n
\tThat on 14.07.2002, at about 07.30 a.m., the Van bearing Registration
\nNo.TN 67-D-3834 was proceeding towards Amathur from Thoothukudi after loading
\nthe house-hold articles of one Gnanathiravium, who is the claimant in
\nM.C.O.P.No.192 of 2003. The said van was driven by one Antony Pichai, who is the
\nclaimant in M.C.O.P.No.189\/03. One Palthangam (claimant in M.C.O.P.No.194 of
\n2003), who is the wife of Gnanathiravium, their minor son Amalpushparaj
\n(claimant in M.C.O.P.No.195 of 2003), one Balamurugan and one Pandi, who are the
\nclaimants in M.C.O.P.Nos.191 and 193 of 2003 respectively were also travelling
\nin the said van.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhen the van was negotiating a curve near G.N.Patti Branch road, the
\ndriver who was on the steering wheel had driven the van in a rash and negligent
\nmanner and as a result of which the van went out of the control of the driver
\nand rammed against the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Bus, which was
\ncoming from the opposite direction. As a result of which, the cleaner of the van
\none Mr.Durairaj had succumbed to injuries instantaneously on the spot and other
\nintimates of the van and one passenger of the bus had sustained injuries. Hence,
\nthe legal heirs of the deceased\/cleaner Durairaj and other injured persons had
\nfiled their respective claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
\n(Additional District and Sessions Judge\/Fast Track Court), Virudhunagar.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.The first respondent\/Ms.Sri Murugan Paper Mills Private Limited,
\nSivakasi, in all the claim petitions is the owner of the Van bearing
\nRegistration No.TN 67-D-3834. The appellant\/United India Insurance Company,
\nSivakasi, who is the second respondent in the claim petition is the insurer of
\nthe said van. Whereas, the third respondent\/Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation in
\nthe claim petition is the owner of the bus bearing Registration No.TN 67-N-0047.
\nAll the three respondents in the claim petitions had contested the claims on
\nvarious grounds. When the parties to the claim petitions were put on trial, 12
\nwitnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants. During the course of their
\nexamination, as nearly as 40 documents were marked. On the other hand, one
\nKandhasamy was examined on behalf of the respondents and during the course of
\nhis examination Ex.R1 and R2 were marked.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.On appraising the evidences both oral and documentary, the claims
\nTribunal had proceeded to pass the awards in the following manner.\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) M.C.O.P.No.189 of 2003 – Dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) M.C.O.P.No.190 of 2003 – Rs.2,90,000\/- towards the compensation for
\nthe death of the deceased Durairaj.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) M.C.O.P.No.191 of 2003 – Rs.44,975\/- towards the compensation for
\nthe injuries sustained by the claimant.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) M.C.O.P.No.192 of 2003 – Rs.1,02,450\/- towards the compensation for
\nthe injuries sustained by the claimant.\n<\/p>\n
\t(v) M.C.O.P.No.193 of 2003 – Rs.68,230\/- towards the compensation for the
\ninjuries sustained by the claimant.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vi) M.C.O.P.No.194 of 2003 – Rs.1,18,000\/- towards the compensation for
\nthe injuries sustained by the claimant.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vii) M.C.O.P.No.195 of 2003 – Rs.37,725\/- towards the compensation for
\nthe injuries sustained by the claimant.\n<\/p>\n
\t(viii) M.C.O.P.No.45 of 2004 – Rs.20,500\/- towards the compensation for
\nthe injuries sustained by the claimant.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.Excepting the claim petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.194 and 195 of 2003, in
\nrespect of all other claim petitions ‘Viz’ M.C.O.P.Nos.190, 191, 192, 193 of
\n2003 and 45 of 2004, the claims Tribunal had directed the respondents 1 and 2
\nbeing the owner and the insurer of the van bearing Registration No.TN 67-D-3834,
\nto pay the compensation to the respective claims. In so far as the claim
\npetitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.194 and 195 of 2003 are concerned, the claims Tribunal
\nhad directed the first respondent being the owner of the van bearing
\nRegistration No.TN 67-D-3834, to pay their respective compensation.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.Being aggrieved by the order of the claims Tribunal, the second
\nrespondent\/United India Insurance Company Limited has preferred these appeals
\nonly against the award passed in the claim petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.190, 191 and
\n193 of 2003.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.It is obvious to note here that the claims Tribunal had found that the
\ndriver of the van bearing Registration No.TN 67-D-3834, alone was responsible
\nfor the accident and hence, the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.189 of 2003, filed
\nby the driver of the van was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.Insofar as the appeals in C.M.A.Nos.122 to 124 of 2005 are concerned,
\nthe claims Tribunal had found that the deceased in M.C.O.P.No.190 of 2003 was
\nworking under the first respondent as a Cleaner. In respect of other appeals the
\nclaimants in M.C.O.P.Nos.191 and 193 of 2003, the Tribunal had found them as
\nload-men and as such the first and second respondents being the owner and the
\ninsurer of the van were found jointly and severally liable to pay compensation
\nto the above said claimants. Disputing the liability, the Insurance Company has
\napproached this Court by way of these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.On a cursory perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the
\nappellant\/Insurance Company being the second respondent in all the claim
\npetitions, it is apparent that it had contended that the driver of the van
\nbearing Registration No.TN 67-D-3834 was not having valid and effective driving
\nlicence to drive the particular clause of vehicle at the relevant period. But
\nthis contention was not considered by the Tribunal. It is obvious to note here
\nthat the accident was taken place on 14.07.2002.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.The learned counsel for the appellant has placed his arguments on the
\nfollowing two grounds:-\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) The driver of the van was not having valid and effective driving
\nlicence to drive the said vehicle at the time of the accident. The deceased in
\nM.C.O.P.No.190 of 2003, Durairaj was an employee of the first respondent. He was
\ntravelling in the said van under such capacity and since the accident was taken
\nplace during the course of his employment, if at all any compensation is to be
\nawarded that might be directed against the owner of the vehicle under the
\nWorkman’s Compensation Act and not under the Motor Vehicles Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii)In respect of other two claims Viz., M.C.O.P.Nos.191 and 193 of 2003,
\nthe injured are also the employees of the first respondent and they are working
\nas Fitter in the first respondent’s Ms.Sri Murugan Paper Mills Private Limited
\nand that they were travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passengers
\nand not as a load-men. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay
\ncompensation for these two claimants.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also submitted that
\nthe licence issued to the driver of the van by the issuing authority was valid
\nupto 15.06.2002 and thereafter, the licence was not renewed. Subsequently, the
\nlicence was renewed only on 18.07.2002. In the intervening period i.e., from
\n16.06.2002 to 17.07.2002,the driver was not having any valid and effective
\nlicence to drive the vehicle. The learned counsel for the appellant has also
\nmaintained that since the occurrence was taken place on 14.07.2002, the driver
\nwas not having an effective and valid driving licence to drive the particular
\ndescription of the vehicle and therefore, the Insurance Company could not be
\nmade liable to pay compensation to the claimants.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.The contention in this regard raised before the Tribunal during the
\ntime of trial was negatived by the Tribunal placing reliance upon the decision
\nreported in 2002 ACJ 1187. In this connection the learned counsel for the
\nappellant has submitted that the licence which was expired as on 15.06.2002 was
\nrenewed only on 18.07.2002. Since the driver was not having valid and effective
\nlicence on 14.07.2002, on which date the occurrence was taken place, the owner
\nof the vehicle alone ought to have been made liable to pay compensation and not
\nthe Insurance Company. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance upon
\nthe decisions viz.,<\/p>\n
\t1) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala and others
\nreported in 2008 (2) TNMAC 369 (SC).\n<\/p>\n
\t2) Ram Babu Tiwari Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and others
\nreported in 2008 (2) TN MAC 347 (SC).\n<\/p>\n
\t3) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kaushalya Devi and others
\nreported in 2008 (2) TNMAC 497 (SC).\n<\/p>\n
\t16.In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala and
\nothers reported in 2008 (2) TNMAC 369 (SC), the accident was taken place on
\n11.06.2004, the driver’s licence was initially valid for the period from
\n15.12.1997 to 14.12.2000 and thereafter from 29.12.2002 to 14.12.2003.
\nThereafter, it was again renewed from 16.05.2002 to 15.05.2008. The
\nappellant\/Insurance Company filed its objections before the Motor Accident
\nClaims Tribunal taking the stand that since the driving licence was not valid on
\nthe date of accident it had no liability. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had
\nturned down the plea. According to the Tribunal though on the date of accident
\nthe driving licence was not valid, since the driver’s licence was renewed on
\n16.05.2005 for a further period of three years it cannot be said that during the
\nintervening period the driver was incompetent or disqualified to drive the
\ntruck. With reference to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short
\nthe ‘Evidence Act’) it was also held that at the time of accident the driver was
\ncompetent to drive the vehicle.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.In appeal against the impugned judgment the High Court has referred to
\nthree judgments of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
\nSwaran Singh and Ors., 2004 (1) TN MAC 104 (SC) : 2004 (3) SCC 297; National
\nInsurance Company Limited Vs. Kusum Rai and Others 2006 (1) TN MAC 9 (SC) : 2006
\n(4) SCC 250 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanjappan and others 2004
\n(1) TN MAC 211 (SC) : 2004 (13) SCC 224  and came to hold that the Insurance
\nCompany, the insurer was liable to indemnify the award. It was also held that
\nmerely there was a gap in the renewal of driving licence that cannot be a ground
\nfor exoneration.”\n<\/p>\n
\t18.Challenging the decision of the High Court, fastening the liability the
\nNational Insurance Company Limited preferred the above cited appeal before the
\nHonourable Supreme Court. While penning down the judgment on behalf of the
\nDivision Bench His Lordship Honourable Mr.Justice Arijit Pasayat, after
\nconsidering the decisions made in Swaran Singh’s case and in Kusum Rai’s case
\nhas held after making reference to the decision in Ishwar Chandra and others Vs.
\nOriental Insurance Company Limited and others reported in 2007 (1) TN MAC 343
\n(SC) : 2007 (10) SCC 650, that in Ishwar Chandra’s case, the three decisions
\nreferred to by the High Court (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran
\nSingh and Others, 2004 (1) TN MAC 104 (SC) : 2004 (3) SCC 297; National
\nInsurance Company Limited Vs. Kusum Rai and Others 2006 (1) TN MAC 9 (SC) : 2006
\n(4) SCC 250 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanjappan and others 2004
\n(1) TN MAC 211 (SC) : 2004 (13) SCC 224) were considered and it was held that
\nthe Insurance Company would have no liability in the case of this nature. His
\nLordship has also held that they were in agreement with the view.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. In Ram Babu Tiwari Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and
\nothers reported in 2008 (2) TN MAC 347 (SC), the driver Ram Prakash was having
\nvalid licence only for the period 11.02.1990 and 10.02.1993 and again from
\n07.02.1996 to 07.02.18999. The driver Ram Prakash did not hold any licence
\nduring the period 11.02.1993 to 06.02.1996. Hence, it is obvious that the
\ndriving licence which was expired on 11.02.1993 not renewed till 06.02.1996. The
\naccident was taken place on 27.01.1996. Particularly on the date of the
\naccident, the driver was not having valid driving licence. In this connection,
\nHis Lordship Honourable Mr.Justice S.B.Sinha has spoken on behalf of a Division
\nBench that:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“19.The Principle laid down in Kusum Rai (supra) has been reiterated in
\nIshwar Chandra and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others 2007
\n(1) TN MAC 343 (SC) : 2007 (10) SCC 650, referring to Sub-Section of Section 15
\nof the Act, this Court stated the law thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“9. From a bare perusal of the said provision, it would appear that the
\nlicence is renewed in terms of the said Act and the rules framed thereunder. The
\nProvision appended to Section 15(1) of the Act in no uncertain terms states that
\nwhereas the original licence granted despite expiry remains valid for a period
\nof 30 days from the date of expiry, if any application for renewal thereof is
\nfiled, thereafter, the same would be renewed from the date of its renewal. The
\naccident taken place on 28.04.1995. As on the said date, the renewal application
\nhad not been filed, the driver did not have a valid licence on the date when the
\nvehicle met with an accident.”\n<\/p>\n
Under this circumstance, it was held that the defence on the part of the insurer
\nthat  the vehicle involved in the accident was not driven by a driver having a
\nvalid driving licence  is a valid one and thus the insurer is not liable to pay
\nthe compensation.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kaushalya Devi and others
\nreported in 2008 (2) TNMAC 497 (SC), the driver was holding licence to drive
\nlight transport vehicle. Endorsement permitting the driver to drive heavy goods
\nvehicles found to be ante-dated, not existing on date of the accident. The owner
\nof the vehicle could not have checked or verified licence for driving heavy
\ngoods vehicle. The owner had also not stepped into witness box to say anything
\nin this regard. Hence, the High Court found that the insurer not liable to pay
\ncompensation. In these circumstances, the Apex Court has also held that in view
\nof the finding arrived at by the High Court, it must be held that the owner
\nalone was liable to pay compensation for causing death of her son by rash and
\nnegligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.In the present case on hand, the driving licence of the driver of the
\nvehicle was expired on 15.06.2002 and renewed on 18.07.2002. But the accident
\nwas taken place on 14.07.2002. As on 14.07.2002, admittedly, the driver was not
\nholding valid driving licence to drive the particular clause of vehicle.
\nPertaining to this point, the learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle has
\nmade reference to Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As contemplated
\nunder Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 every driving licence shall,
\nnotwithstanding its expiry under this Sub-section, continue to be effective for
\na period of thirty days from such expiry. Hence, it is thus made clear that
\nthough the accident was taken place on 14.07.2002, since the driving licence was
\nstatutorily valid for a period of thirty days from such expiry ie.,  from
\n15.06.2002, it cannot be heard to say that the driver was not having valid and
\neffective driving licence to drive the class of vehicle at the material time.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.Secondly, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
\nclaimants in M.C.O.P.Nos.191 and 193 of 2003 were working as fitter in Sri
\nMurugan Paper Mills Private Limited, who is the owner of the Van. According to
\nthe claimants, they were travelling as loadmen. On the contrary, it is the
\ncontention of the appellant\/Insurance Company that they were travelling as
\ngratuitous passenger and not as loadmen.\n<\/p>\n
\t23.In order to subordinate his case, the learned counsel for the appellant
\nhas taken this Court through the testimonies of P.W.3 and R.W.1. P.W.3, Sundari
\nis the wife of the deceased Durairaj (M.C.O.P.No.190 of 2003), she would state
\nin her evidence that her husband Durairaj was working as loadmen in the Murugan
\nPaper Mills Private Limited. R.W.1, who is the Divisional Manager of the
\nappellant\/Insurance Company has stated in his evidence that the Van bearing
\nRegistration No.TN-67-D-3834 was registered with their Insurance Company at the
\nrelevant period.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.According to the Insurance policy, the Insurance Company would be made
\nliable for the damage which may be caused to the vehicle as well as for the
\ninjury or death which may be caused to the cleaner, loadman and the owner of the
\ngoods. He has also stated that the policy would be covered for the owner of the
\ngoods. He would further submit that in accordance with their investigation the
\nclaimants in M.C.O.P.Nos.191 and 193 of 2003 Viz., Pandi and Balamurugan were
\nworking in the Murugan Paper Mills Private Limited, who is the owner of the Van.
\nHe has also made it clear that the said claimants were not travelling in the Van
\nas a loadmen. His chief examination had withstood the test of cross-examination.\n<\/p>\n
\t25.On careful scrutinization of the available materials on record, it is
\nobvious that the claimants have not produced any satisfactory evidence to
\nsupport their contention. Under this circumstance, the finding of the claims
\nTribunal that the claimants in M.C.O.P.Nos.191 and 193 of 2003 were travelling
\nas loadmen is not in consonance with the evidences and hence it is liable to be
\nset aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t26.In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the appellant has
\nalso placed reliance upon the decisions in National Insurance Company Limited
\nVs. Bhukya Tara and others reported in 2008 (2) TN MAc 342 (SC). In this case,
\nthe deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle, it was not disputed. Under such
\ncircumstances, it was held placing reliance upon the decisions reported in New
\nIndia Assurance Company Limited Vs. Asha Rani and others reported in 2004 (2) TN
\nMAC 387 (SC) : 2003 (2) SCC 223, that the Insurance company is not liable to pay
\ncompensation to the claimants.\n<\/p>\n
\t27.In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rattani and others reported
\nin (2009) 2 SCC 75, a Division Bench of our Apex Court has held that in the
\nfacts and circumstances of the case, the victims of the accident were travelling
\nin the truck as gratuitous passengers. Therefore, the appellant herein (National
\nInsurance Company Limited) was not liable to pay the amount of compensation to
\nthe claimants.\n<\/p>\n
\t28.On coming to the instant case on hand, the injured persons in
\nM.C.O.P.Nos.191 and 193 of 2005 were travelling in the offending Van belonging
\nto Sri Murugan Paper Mills Private Limited. This has not been disputed. But the
\nonly question is whether they were travelling in the capacity of the employee of
\nSri Murugan Paper Mills Private Limited or under the capacity of loadmen. When
\nthere is no adequate evidence on the part of the claimants, the inference is
\nthat they were travelling only in the capacity of gratuitous passenger and not
\nin the capacity of loadmen.\n<\/p>\n
\t29.Hence, having regard to the decisions cited above, this Court is of the
\nconsidered view that the deceased and the injured persons in M.C.O.P.Nos.190,
\n191 and 193 of 2005 were travelling as gratuitous passengers and hence the
\nInsurance Company is not all liable to pay compensation to the claimants.\n<\/p>\n
\t30.In the result, the appeals in C.M.A.Nos.122 to 124 are allowed. The
\naward of the Tribunal dated 31.03.2004, in respect of the claim petitions in
\nM.C.O.P.Nos.190, 191 and 193 of 2003 alone are modified as detailed below:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellant\/Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the
\nclaimants. The owner of the Van i.e., Sri Murugan Paper Mills Private Limited
\nalone is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. It is open to the
\nclaimants to claim the amount against the owner of the Van Viz., Sri Murugan
\nPaper Mills Private Limited.\n<\/p>\n
\t31.It is brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant\/Insurance
\nCompany had already deposited a sum of Rs.25,000\/- on 16.12.2004. Besides this,
\nthe appellant\/Insurance Company has also deposited a sum of Rs.3,35,431\/-
\n(Rupees Three Lakhs thirty-five thousand, four hundred and thirty one only),
\nRs.30,379\/- (Rupees Thirty thousand, three hundred and seventy nine only) and
\nRs.59,978\/- (Rupees fifty nine thousand, nine hundred and seventy eight only)
\nrespectively towards the balance to satisfy the award and made in
\nM.C.O.P.Nos.190, 191 and 193 of 2003 by way of cheques bearing Nos.363664,
\n363663 and 363662 dated 22.02.2004 drawn at Indian Overseas Bank, Virudhunagar
\nBranch deposited to the credit of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.Nos.190, 191 and
\n193 of 2003. Since the appellant\/Insurance Company is found not liable to pay
\nany compensation, the entire amount which has been deposited to the credit of
\nthe claim petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.190 of 2003, 191 of 2003 and 193 of 2003 on
\nthe file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions
\nJudge (Fast Track Court) Virudhunagar) shall have to be refunded to the
\nappellant\/Insurance Company. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions
\nare also closed. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
ps<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
\nAdditional District and Sessions Judge,
\nFast Track Court,
\nVirudhunagar.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Divisional Manager vs Sundari on 1 February, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01\/02\/2011 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN C.M.A (MD) No.122 of 2005 C.M.A (MD) Nos.123 of 2005 C.M.A (MD) No.124 of 2005 and C.M.P (MD) Nos.1036, 1038 and 1040 of 2005 The Divisional Manager, United […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-167463","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Divisional Manager vs Sundari on 1 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-sundari-on-1-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Divisional Manager vs Sundari on 1 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-sundari-on-1-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-26T11:36:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-vs-sundari-on-1-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-vs-sundari-on-1-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Divisional Manager vs Sundari on 1 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-26T11:36:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-vs-sundari-on-1-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3628,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-vs-sundari-on-1-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-vs-sundari-on-1-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-vs-sundari-on-1-february-2011\",\"name\":\"The Divisional Manager vs Sundari on 1 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-26T11:36:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-vs-sundari-on-1-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-vs-sundari-on-1-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-vs-sundari-on-1-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Divisional Manager vs Sundari on 1 February, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Divisional Manager vs Sundari on 1 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-sundari-on-1-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Divisional Manager vs Sundari on 1 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-sundari-on-1-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-26T11:36:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-sundari-on-1-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-sundari-on-1-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Divisional Manager vs Sundari on 1 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-26T11:36:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-sundari-on-1-february-2011"},"wordCount":3628,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-sundari-on-1-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-sundari-on-1-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-sundari-on-1-february-2011","name":"The Divisional Manager vs Sundari on 1 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-26T11:36:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-sundari-on-1-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-sundari-on-1-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-vs-sundari-on-1-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Divisional Manager vs Sundari on 1 February, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167463","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=167463"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167463\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167463"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=167463"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=167463"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}