{"id":23733,"date":"2002-02-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-02-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-vs-pakkiriammal-on-14-february-2002"},"modified":"2017-07-27T03:43:55","modified_gmt":"2017-07-26T22:13:55","slug":"national-insurance-company-vs-pakkiriammal-on-14-february-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-vs-pakkiriammal-on-14-february-2002","title":{"rendered":"National Insurance Company vs Pakkiriammal on 14 February, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
National Insurance Company vs Pakkiriammal on 14 February, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS          \n\n Dated : 14.02.2002\n\nCoram : \n\n THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SHANMUGAM            \n\n  and\n\n  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. THANGAVEL           \n\n\n C.M.A. No.252 of 1995 and  C.M.P. No.2505 of 1996 \n\n\n National Insurance Company \n  Limited, Kumbakonam, rep. \n  by its Manager.                                       ..  Appellant\n\n                        vs.\n\n 1.Pakkiriammal \n  2.Ponni\n  3.Minor Priya\n  4.Minor Thiagarajan Senthil Arul\n  5.Minor Jenni\n  6.L. Baskaran                                         ..  Respondents\n\n(Minors declared as Majors and\n R-1 discharged from guardianship\n as per the Orders of the Court\n dated 5.3.1996 and 30.1.2002 in\n C.M.P. Nos.2506, 2507 of 1996 and \n 602 of 2002 respectively)\n\n\n        PRAYER :  Appeal against the  order  of  the  Motor  Accidents  Claims \nTribunal  (Sub  Court),  Nagapattinam dated 29.7.1994 and made in M.A.C.T.O.P.   \nNo.128 of 1990.\n\n:                                   ORDER \n<\/pre>\n
        This Appeal coming on for orders and upon perusing the  Memorandum  of
\nAppeal, the order of the Lower Court, and the material papers in the case, and
\nupon hearing  the  arguments  of Mr.  R.Vedantham for the appellant and of Mr.
\nP.  Rathinam for the first respondent as well as Mr.  T.   Kandasamy  for  the
\nsixth  respondent,  and having stood over for consideration till this day, the
\nCourt passed the following Judgment :-\n<\/p>\n
                                J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n
P.  SHANMUGAM, J.\n<\/p>\n
        The   Insurance  Company,  the  second  respondent  before  the  Motor
\nAccidents Claims Tribunal is the appellant herein.  Respondents 1 to  5  filed
\nM.C.O.P.   No.128 of 1990 claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000\/- for the death of the
\nhusband of the first respondent and the father of respondent 2 to 5.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The accident occurred on 24.3.1989 at 10.30 am while the  deceased
\nwas  going in his scooter from Kunnaloor to Thiruthuraipoondi, for his office.
\nOne Arunachalam  was  the  pillion-rider.    When  the  vehicle  was   nearing
\nNedumbalam Village, a lorry bearing Registration No.TNF-39 76 insured with the
\nappellant  Corporation  was  proceeding, and while overtaking the vehicle, the
\ndriver turned the lorry to the right side, hitting the scooter.  Consequent on
\nthis, Rajamanickam suffered serious  injuries,  was  under  treatment  at  the
\nGovernment Hospital at Thanjavur from 24.3.1989 to 2.4.1989.  Later on, he had
\nto  be  brought to Chennai and admitted at Vijaya Hospital and one of his legs
\nwas amputated.  However, he succumbed  to  the  injuries  on  8.4.1989.    The
\npillion-rider Arunachalam  also  succumbed  to the injuries on 11.4.1989.  The
\nTribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held  that  the
\naccident  occurred  only  due  to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry.
\nInsofar as the fatal accident of Rajamanickam is concerned, the Tribunal fixed
\nthe age of the deceased at 48 and considering the fact that he was an Advocate
\nand Panchayat Union President, it fixed his monthly income at  Rs.3,000\/-  and
\ndetermined  the  compensation  at  Rs.3,52,000\/- and directed the amount to be
\npaid by the Insurance Company.  The  appeal  is  preferred  by  the  Insurance
\nCompany only  on their liability to indemnify the damages.  According to them,
\nas per the terms of the policy Ex.R.1  covering  the  risk  in  accident,  the
\nliability   cannot   exceed  Rs.1,50,000\/-  and  therefore,  they  assail  the
\nconclusion of the Tribunal that they must indemnify the whole liability.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The only point that arises for consideration  in  this  appeal  is
\nwhether  Ex.R.1  policy  limits  the  liability  or  whether  the liability is
\nunlimited.  The appellant Insurance Company has filed  an  additional  counter
\naffidavit  stating  that on verification of the policy, it is found that their
\nstatutory liability is Rs.1,50,000\/- and that the same had not been  increased
\nby payment  of  additional  premium.  R.W.2 has stated that the said policy is
\nonly an ‘Act Premium Policy’.  Since no extra premium was paid, as per the Act
\nPolicy for the damage to the death, the limt is only Rs.1,50,000\/-.    Learned
\ncounsel  for  the  appellant  denied  the suggestion that insofar as the third
\nparty liability is concerned, there is no limit  and  he  further  denied  the
\nsuggestion that the limitation was only in reference to the property.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   In terms of Section 95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the
\ninsurance company is obliged to satisfy the  liability  to  an  extent  of  of
\nRs.1,50,000\/- insofar  as  goods  carriage vehicle is concerned.  However, the
\ncase of the respondents is that inasmuch as the insurance covers  third  party
\nrisk, the  liability is unlimited.  The question that arises for consideration
\nhere is whether on payment of a premium of Rs.240\/- towards third party  risks
\n(TPR),  the  liability  of  the  insurance  company is unlimited or limited to
\nRs.1,50,000\/-.   The  Motor  Insurance  Rating  Guide,  which  sets  out   the
\nprovisions  relating  to  the  benefits under motor insurance, has defined the
\ntypes of insurance policies.  The Liability to Public  Risk  Policy  has  been
\ndefined as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “Indemnity  to  the  insured against legal liability for claims by the
\npublic in respect of accidental personal injury or damage to  property  caused
\nby the insured vehicle.”\n<\/p>\n
The Act Liability Insurance Policy has been defined as follows :\n<\/p>\n
        “Indemnity  to  the  insured against legal liability for claims by the
\npublic in respect of accidental personal injury and\/or damage to any  property
\nof  third  party  caused  by  the  insured  vehicle  in  a public place, as is
\nnecessary to meet the requirements of Section 95 of the  Motor  Vehicles  Act,
\n1939.”\n<\/p>\n
Comprehensive Insurance Policy is defined as follows :\n<\/p>\n
        “Loss  of  or  damage  to the insured’s vehicle by accidental external
\nmeans or malicious acts, fire, external  explosion,  lightning,  selfignition,
\nburglary, housebreaking  or  theft.    Also  whilst  in transit by road, rail,
\ninland waterway, lift, elevator or air subject to the limitations mentioned in
\nthe policy and liability to the public risks including act liability.”\n<\/p>\n
In our case, the policy  is  admittedly  a  third  party  liability  insurance
\npolicy.  Clause 3 states as follows :\n<\/p>\n
“Liability  to  the  Public  Risks  only  and “Act Only” Liability Risks ( All
\nIndia) :\n<\/p>\n
C.C.  Not Exceeding Liability to the            \"Act Only\"\n                                Public Risks Only Liability\n\n        Over 3000                       Rs.300                  Rs.250 \n\n\n\nN.B.  2 :  \"Act Only\" Policies cannot be extended to cover              Fire\nand\/ or Theft Risks or other benefits.\n\n\nCOMMERCIAL VEHICLE  Schedule of premium       \n\nCLASS A (2)    GOODS CARRYING VEHICLES - GENERAL CARTAGE              \n                        (PUBLIC CARRIER) :   \n\n<\/pre>\n
Licensed Carrying ‘Own Damage’ Liability to ‘Act Only’
\nCapacity of the the Public
\nVehicle                                         Risks
\nExceeding 5080  Rs.850 plus Rs.240\/- Rs.200\/-\n<\/p>\n
Kgs.  (5 Tons)          Rs.200 for each\n                                additional 1016\n                                Kgs.  (1 Ton) or\n                                part thereof plus\n                                0.70% on I.E.V.\n\n\n        Clause 11 states as follows :\n<\/pre>\n
        “Additional Benefits Under Commercial Vehicles Tariff (Not  Applicable
\nto Motor Trade Road Risks) :\n<\/p>\n
        (The benefits mentioned here may not be insured separately but only in
\nconjunction with a “Comprehensive” or “Liability to the Public Risks” Policies
\nonly by charging extra premium as stated)\n<\/p>\n
1)      Liability to the Public –\n<\/p>\n
        The limit of Rs.50,000\/- may be increased by payment of an  additional
\npremium on the following :\n<\/p>\n
                                                Limit of Liability
\nScale —————————————————-
\nof      Personal injury- Personal injury- Personal injury-\n<\/p>\n
rates   unlimited       unlimited               unlimited\napplic- Property damage-        Property damage- Property damage-  \n<\/pre>\n
able to Rs.1,50,000 Rs.3,00,000 over Rs.3,00,000
\n                Per Per Per Per Per Per
\n        Vehicle Trailer Vehicle Trailer Vehicle Trailer\n<\/p>\n
        ——- ——- ——- ——- ——- ——-\n<\/p>\n
b)      Rs.100 Rs.50 Rs.150 Rs.60 Rs.150 Rs.60   \n                                                                plus plus\nGoods                                                   @ Rs.5 @ Rs.5  \nCarrying                                                        for every  for\nevery\nVehicles                                                addl.  Rs.  addl.  Rs.\nGeneral                                                 1 lakh or 1 lakh or      \nCarriers                                                        part    part\n                                                                thereof\nthereof\n                                                                in  excess  in\nexcess \n                                                                of   Rs.3   of\nRs.3 \n                                                                lakhs lakhs\n\n\nN.B.  1) In case where the limit of indemnity under an  existing        policy\n<\/pre>\n
exceeds Rs.50,000\/-, such limit may be  increased in accordance with the scale
\nat an additional        premium equivalent to the difference between scale
\nrates for such policy limit and that for the required   increased limits.\n<\/p>\n
        2) The property damage limit in respect of vehicles     rated    under
\nClass E may be increased in accordance with     the  above  scale  by charging
\n50% of the rate applicable      to (a) All Commercial Vehicles as above.\n<\/p>\n
        3) Where unlimited personal injury is required to be    covered  under
\nan “Act Only” policy in respect of      vehicles   “Designed   as   Commercial
\nVehicles and used for   Commercial and private purpose  (  excluding  use  for
\nhire    or reward)” and registered as such this may granted by  charging    in
\nthe first item of schedule for vehicles appearing at (a) above.”\n<\/p>\n
        5.  As per the definitions of the three types  of  policies,  we  find
\nthat each  one of them are distinct and separate.  The comprehensive insurance
\npolicy covers the following risks :\n<\/p>\n
        (a) Public risk including Act Liablity\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (b) Loss or damage to the vehicle’s risk<\/p>\n
        The Public Risk Policy indemnifies the legal liability in  respect  of
\nthird party accidental personal injury or property damage by the vehicle.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        The  Act  Liability  Policy  covers  the third party risks in a public
\nplace.\n<\/p>\n
In both the policies, expressions ‘legal liability for claims’ have been  used
\nand in the Act Liability Policy, a further expression ‘as is necessary to meet
\nthe  requirements  of  Section  95  of  the  Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has been
\nincluded.  But, none of the policies say  that  the  liability  is  unlimited.
\nEven  in  reference  to  comprehensive  policy,  it says that the liability is
\nsubject to the limitation mentioned in the policy and  the  liability  to  the
\npublic risk,  including  act  liability.    By  going  through the Schedule of
\nPremium, it is seen that the premium differs from the public risk and the  act
\nonly  liability and the minimum premium payable for goods carrying vehicle for
\npublic risk is Rs.240\/-.    If  there  has  to  be  additional  benefit  under
\ncommercial vehicles’ tariff for a personal injury or unlimited property damage
\nupto Rs.3  lakhs,  an  additional premium of Rs.150\/- is to be paid.  The Note
\nunder this additional benefit  clause  makes  it  clear  that  the  limits  of
\nindemnity  under  the  policy  may  be increased in accordance with the scale.
\nFrom the above, it is clear that  the  liability  is  limited  to  the  extent
\nmentioned under the Act unless and until additional premium is paid.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   Ex.R.1, the Policy under the Schedule of Premium Column makes the
\nposition very clear.  The limits of liability are specified therein as follows
\n:<\/p>\n
\nSCHEDULE OF PREMIUM       \n\nB :     LIABILITY TO PUBLIC RISK                        - Rs.240\/-\n\nAdd :  for L.L.  to authorised non-fare\n        paying passengers as per END.IMT.  \n        14(b)\n        Limit any one passenger Rs. \n        Limit any one Accdt.  Rs.\n\nAdd :  for L.L.  to paid driver and\/or\n        Cleaner as per END.IMT.16                       - Rs.  16\/-\n\nAdd :  for increased T.P.  limits\n        Section II 1(i) Unlimited\n        Section II 1(ii) Rs......                               -\n\nAdd :  for .....................                                -\n\nCOMPREHENSIVE PREMIUM (A + B)                           - Rs.256\/-        \n\nLess :  10% Special Discount                                    -\n\nNETT PREMIUM DUE (ROUNDED OFF)                  - Rs.256\/-        \n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
As per the policy Ex.R.1, the owner has paid the minimum bonus for third party
\nrisks plus Rs.16\/- for paid driver and cleaner, but he has not paid additional
\namount for increased T.P.  limits.  If  he  had  to  get  an  unlimited  legal
\nliability,  he should have paid extra premium, which has not been done in this
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  The above question  has  come  up  for  consideration  before  the
\nSupreme Court  in  NATIONAL  INSURANCE  COMPANY LIMITED VS.  JUGAL KISHORE (A.
\nI.R.  1998 S.C.  719).  Their lordships in that case held  that  comprehensive
\ninsurance  of the vehicle and payment of higher premium does not mean that the
\nlimit of the liability with regard to third party risk  becomes  unlimited  or
\nhigher  than the statutory liability fixed under Sub-section (2) of Section 95
\nof the A ct.  For this purpose, a specific agreement  has  to  be  arrived  at
\nbetween  the  owner and the insurance company and a separate premium has to be
\npaid on the amount of liability undertaken by the insurance  company  in  this
\nbehalf.   Likewise,  if risk of any other nature, for instance, with regard to
\nthe driver or passenger etc.  in excess of statutory  liability,  if  any,  is
\nsought  to  be  covered,  it  has  to be clearly specfied in the policy that a
\nseparate premium is paid therfor.  This  is  the  requirement  of  the  Tariff
\nRegulations framed  for the purpose.  The Supreme Court held in that case that
\nthe insurance company did not undertake in the policy, any liability in excess
\nof the statutory liability.  In the absence of payment of  additional  premium
\neven in the case of comprehensive policy, it was held that the liability under
\nthe policy  in  that  case  was  the  same  as  the  statutory liability.  The
\nprinciple laid down by the Supreme Court in the said decision squarely applies
\nto the case on hand.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  A Division Bench of our High Court, in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY
\nLIMITED VS.  K.  CHANDRA (1991 A.C.J.  386) answered in negative, the question
\nwhether in a comprehensive policy, the liability of the insurance  company  is
\nunlimited.  K.   Venkataswami  J.    (as he then was), speaking for the Bench,
\nobserved that the liability was limited to the extent of  Rs.50,000\/-  as  per
\nthe  statutory liability, following the decision in Jugal Kishore’s case cited
\nsupra.  In ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.  VS.  JALAJA & OTHERS (1995  A.C.J.\n<\/p>\n
829), M.   Srinivasan J.  ( as he then was), speaking for the Bench, referring
\nto the similar clause in the policy, which did not mention any specific amount
\nbut which only referred to the Act and says that such amount as  is  necessary
\nto  meet  the  requirements of the Act, held that the insurance company is not
\nliable to pay anything more tha n the amount limited in the statute unless the
\npolicy contains a different provision.  A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court,
\nin NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS.  ROY GEORGE &  OTHERS  (1993  A.C.J.\n<\/p>\n
343),  held  that  the  insurer  is  not,  under  Section 96(1), liable to the
\nclaimants for the entire amount covered by the judgment, but  only  after  the
\nextent covered under Section 95(1)(b) readwith Section 95(2) of the Act.  Even
\nthough  the  Full Bench was dealing with the ‘Act Only Policy’ in our case, we
\ndo not find any difference between the third party risk  policy  and  the  act
\nonly policy  insofar  as  the  limits  of the liability are concerned.  In NEW
\nINDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS.  SHANTHI  BAI  (1995  A.C.J.    470),  the
\nSupreme Court, after referring to Section 95 of the Act, held as follows :\n<\/p>\n
        “These were  the  provisions  at  the relevant time.  These provisions
\nwere interpreted by this court in the case of National  Insurance  Co.    Ltd.
\nVs.  Jugal  Kishore (cited supra).  This court observed that even though it is
\nnot permissible to use the vehicle unless it is covered atleast under an  ‘Act
\nOnly’  policy,  it  is  not  obligatory  for  the owner of a vehicle to get it
\ncomprehensively insured.  In case, however,  it  is  has  got  comprehensively
\ninsured,  a  higher premium is payable depending on the estimated value of the
\nvehicle.  Such insurance entitles the owner  to  claim  reimbursement  of  the
\nentire  amount  of  loss  or  damage  suffered upto the estimated value of the
\nvehicle calculated according to the  rules  and  regulations  framed  in  this
\nbehalf.”\n<\/p>\n
        …..\n<\/p>\n
        “Comprehensive  insurance of the vehicle and payment of higher premium
\non this score, however, does not mean that the limit of liability with  regard
\nto  third  party risk becomes unlimited or higher than the statutory liability
\nfixed under Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act.   For  this  purpose,  a
\nspecific  agreement  has  to be arrived at between the owner and the insurance
\ncompany and separate premium has  to  be  paid  on  the  amount  of  liabiilty
\nundertaken by the insurance company in this behalf.\n<\/p>\n
In  the present case, therefore, comprehensive policy which has been issued on
\nthe basis of the estimated value of the vehicle of Rs.2,80,0  00\/-,  does  not
\nautomatically  result  in  covering  the liability of third party risk for the
\namount higher than the statutory limit.  A Division Bench of this court in NEW
\nINDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS.  R.K.  GEETHA & ANOTHER [I  (1999)  A.C.C.\n<\/p>\n
535)  has  taken  the  view  that  in the absence of any additional payment of
\npremium, the liability of the insurance  company  is  limited  to  the  extent
\nmentioned in the  Act.   In NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS.  NATHILAL &
\nOTHERS [1999 (1) S.C.C.  552], the Supreme Court held that in the  absence  of
\npayment  of  any  special  premium for the purpose of unlimited liability, the
\nmere fact that in the insurance policy, the column against unlimited liability
\nwas left blank  could  not  by  itself  justify  the  inference  of  unlimited
\nliability  and  ultimately  held  that the terms of the policy were limited to
\nRs.1,50,000\/-.  Their lordships referred and followed the  decision  in  Jugal
\nKishore’s case,  referred  to  earlier.  In NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
\nVS.  ANNAMMA ABRAHAM & OTHERS (1988 A.C.J.  1131), a  Division  Bench  of  the
\nKerala  High  Court held that in the absence of any evidence about the payment
\nof additional premium, the liability of the insurance company  is  limited  to
\nRs.50,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  Counsel for the claimants and the owner of the vehicle referred to
\nthe judgment  in  NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS.  PUSHPA KAKKAR (1993
\nA.C.J.  328), wherein a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has  held  that
\nwhen  premium  was  paid  more  than the ‘Act Only’ premium, in the absence of
\nevidence that the liability of  the  insurance  company  is  limited,  despite
\npayment  of  additional  premium,  the  liability  of the insurance company is
\nunlimited.  The Division Bench has taken the view that since Rs.240\/- has been
\ncharged by the insurance company to cover third party liability, which premium
\nis more than the ‘ Act  Only’  premium  of  Rs.200\/-,  the  liability  of  the
\ninsurance company  would be unlimited.  The Division Bench did not go into the
\nvarious provisions of the Act and the tariff rules and also did not  refer  to
\nthe judgments of the Supreme Court referred to earlier.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  Counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment of the Supreme
\nCourt in AMRIT  LAL SOOD VS.  KAUSHALYA DEVI THAPAR (1998 A.C.J.  531 S.C.) on
\nthe  question  whether  the  insurer  is  liable  to  satisfy  the  claim  for
\ncompensation made  by a person travelling gratuitously in the car.  Relying on
\nthe indemnity clause in the policy, it  was  held  that  the  expression  ‘Any
\nPerson’  would  include  an  occupant  of the car and therefore, the insurance
\ncompany is liable.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  In ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS.  CHERUVAKKARA  NAFEESSU
\n& OTHERS  (2001 A.C.J.  1), the Supreme Court, following the judgment in Amrit
\nLal Sood’s case, held  that  the  insurance  company  is  liable  to  pay  the
\nclaimants, the entire amount awarded with a right to recover from the insured,
\nthe excess amount over and above the liability covered under the policy.  This
\njudgment  is strongly relied on by the respondents’ counsel and a direction is
\nsought to the insurance company to pay the entire liability.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  The above judgment was referred to a  Larger  Bench  and  in  NEW
\nINDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS.   C.M.  JAYA (2002 A.I.R.  S.C.W.  259), a
\nConstitution Bench of the Supreme Court  considered  a  question  of  apparent
\nconflict  in the two three Judges’ Bench decisions of the Supreme Court namely
\nNEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS.  SHANTHI BAI [1995 (2)  S.C.C.    539]
\nand AMRIT LAL SOOD  VS.   KAUSHALYA DEVI THAPAR [1998 (3) S.C.C.  744].  Their
\nlordships, after considering these judgments, held as follows :\n<\/p>\n
        “Their is consistency on the point that in  the  case  of  an  insured
\npolicy  not  taking  any  higher  liability by accepting a higher premium, the
\nliability of the insurance company is neither unlimited nor  higher  than  the
\nstatutory liability fixed under Section 95(2) of the Act.  In Amrit Lal Sood’s<\/p>\n
case, the  decision in Shanthi Bai’s case is not noticed.  However, both these
\ndecisions refer to the judgment in Jugal Kishore’s case and no  contrary  view
\nis expressed.”\n<\/p>\n
Ultimately, their lordships concluded as follows :\n<\/p>\n
        “In  the premise, we hold that the view expressed by the three learned
\nJudges in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS.  SHANTHI BAI  is
\ncorrect and answer the question set out in the Order of Reference as under :-\n<\/p>\n
        In  the  case  of insurance company not taking any higher liability by
\naccepting a higher premium for payment of compensation to the third party, the
\ninsurer would be liable to the extent limited under Section 92 of the Act  and
\nwould not be liable to pay the entire amount.”\n<\/p>\n
        13.  In the light of the principle laid down by the Constitution Bench
\nresolving  this  question, we hold that the liability of the insurance company
\nis limited to Rs.1,50,000\/- and the sixth  respondent  is  bound  to  pay  the
\nremaining amount  of  compensation  ordered.    The  appeal is allowed to that
\nextent.  No costs.  Consequently, the connected C.  M.P.  is closed.\n<\/p>\n
Index :  Yes                                            14..02..2002.\nab\n\n\nSd\/..\n\n\nAssistant Registrar\n\n\n\n\n\/\/ TRUE COPY \/\/  \n\n\n\nSub Assistant Registrar (C.S.)\n\n\nTo\n\nThe Subordinate Judge, \nMotor Accidents Claims Tribunal\n(Sub Court),\nNagapattinam. \n\nP.  SHANMUGAM, J.    \nand \nP.  THANGAVEL, J.   \n\nPre-delivery Judgment in\nC.M.A.  No.252 of 1995 \n\nDelivered on\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court National Insurance Company vs Pakkiriammal on 14 February, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 14.02.2002 Coram : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SHANMUGAM and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. THANGAVEL C.M.A. No.252 of 1995 and C.M.P. No.2505 of 1996 National Insurance Company Limited, Kumbakonam, rep. by its […]<\/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-23733","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNational Insurance Company vs Pakkiriammal on 14 February, 2002 - 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\/national-insurance-company-vs-pakkiriammal-on-14-february-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"National Insurance Company vs Pakkiriammal on 14 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-vs-pakkiriammal-on-14-february-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-26T22:13:55+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-vs-pakkiriammal-on-14-february-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-vs-pakkiriammal-on-14-february-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"National Insurance Company vs Pakkiriammal on 14 February, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-26T22:13:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-vs-pakkiriammal-on-14-february-2002\"},\"wordCount\":3050,\"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\\\/national-insurance-company-vs-pakkiriammal-on-14-february-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-vs-pakkiriammal-on-14-february-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-vs-pakkiriammal-on-14-february-2002\",\"name\":\"National Insurance Company vs Pakkiriammal on 14 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-26T22:13:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-vs-pakkiriammal-on-14-february-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-vs-pakkiriammal-on-14-february-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/national-insurance-company-vs-pakkiriammal-on-14-february-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"National Insurance Company vs Pakkiriammal on 14 February, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"National Insurance Company vs Pakkiriammal on 14 February, 2002 - 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\/national-insurance-company-vs-pakkiriammal-on-14-february-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"National Insurance Company vs Pakkiriammal on 14 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-vs-pakkiriammal-on-14-february-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-26T22:13:55+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-vs-pakkiriammal-on-14-february-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-vs-pakkiriammal-on-14-february-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"National Insurance Company vs Pakkiriammal on 14 February, 2002","datePublished":"2002-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-26T22:13:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-vs-pakkiriammal-on-14-february-2002"},"wordCount":3050,"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\/national-insurance-company-vs-pakkiriammal-on-14-february-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-vs-pakkiriammal-on-14-february-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-vs-pakkiriammal-on-14-february-2002","name":"National Insurance Company vs Pakkiriammal on 14 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-26T22:13:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-vs-pakkiriammal-on-14-february-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-vs-pakkiriammal-on-14-february-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/national-insurance-company-vs-pakkiriammal-on-14-february-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"National Insurance Company vs Pakkiriammal on 14 February, 2002"}]},{"@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\/23733","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=23733"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23733\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23733"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23733"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23733"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}