LAWS(MAD)-2011-2-85

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. GURUSAMY

Decided On February 15, 2011
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. , GOPICHETTYPALAYAM Appellant
V/S
GURUSAMY 2. A. MURUGESAN 3. KRISHNAMOORTHY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Insurance Company has come forward with this appeal against the grant by the Tribunal in respect of a mini door vehicle, in MCOP. No. 70 of 2007 on the file of the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No. 4), Bhavani, Erode District.

(2.) According to the claimant, the claimant and two others were travelling in a mini door goods carrier vehicle. According to the F.I.R. filed, they were returning in the vehicle after the rice bags were delivered near Periyamariamman Koil. The Insurance Company would only contend that the vehicle which is a mini door goods carrier does not have any seating capacity for any passenger and only the driver can travel along with the vehicle and nobody else is permitted to travel as there is zero capacity in the vehicle. They are not eligible to travel in the vehicle even as the owner of the goods. But in this case as per the F.I.R. since they are returning back after the delivery of the goods, the passengers were travelling as un-authorised persons. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation since the policy does not cover for anybody else other than the driver and hence the award granted by the court below is not correct. They also questioned the quantum. Hence, the appeal.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Respondents, would contend that in the F.I.R., it is stated that they were travelling in the vehicle after delivering the goods. In the evidence which was let in, had contended that they were returning with some other returned goods also. Therefore, they were travelling as a passenger as the owner of the goods in the goods carrier. Therefore, under law, they would be covered under the policy and hence, the liability cannot be questioned by the Insurance Company and the award granted by the court below is fair and reasonable and they would contend that the R.C. Book has not been produced or permit is not produced to establish the fact that there is prohibition in so far as the passengers are concerned. Hence, the award is correct.