NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. M. JAYANTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited, Vellore against the Judgement and Decree dated 31.10.2008 made in MCOP.No.268/2007 by the learned Principal District Judge (MACT) Vellore.

(2.) The necessary facts leading to filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are that the deceased Mahadevan was working as a Coolie. On 3.3.2007 at 8.30 a.m., the deceased was travelling in the lorry as a loadman. The driver of the lorry drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the deceased fell down from the top of the lorry and sustained multiple grievous injuries. He was immediately taken to the K.H.Apollo Hospital Melvisharam and from there, he was referred to Government Medical College Hospital, Vellore, where he succumbed to injuries. The claimants, who are the wife, sons and mother of the deceased, claimed a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence placed on record held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the lorry and thus fastened the liability on the Insured as well as the Insurer. While computing the compensation, the Tribunal determined the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4500/- and monthly dependency at Rs.3000/- after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and by applying the multiplier of 17, arrived at the total loss of dependency at Rs.6,12,000/-. In addition to that, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.5000/- for the loss of estate and in all, Rs.6,32,000/- with interest at 9 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. As against the same, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

(3.) Mr.K.Suryanarayanan, the learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the deceased was a loadman and as such, the provisions under the Workmen Compensation Act 1923 alone is applicable and not the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, he would contend that the claim petition for compensation is maintainable only before the Labour Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act and not before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The learned counsel would point that no additional premium was paid for wider legal liability or common law liability and the Insurance Policy being a statutory policy covering liability only under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, the Tribunal ought to have rejected the claim petition as not maintainable. In the alternative, he would contend that even assuming that the jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal could be invoked, the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation as per the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 and not as per the common law, since such liability was not covered under the Insurance Policy covering the said liability.