NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. S.SANKARA NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal holding that insurer of Tata Sumo car bearing registration No.TN-01 M 0036 is liable to pay compensation to the Claimants with liberty to recover the same from the owner-1st Respondent, Insurance Company has preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.1413 to 1420 of 2008. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, Claimants have preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.1767 to 1774 of 2008. Since, all appeals arise out of the common Award, all the appeals were heard together and disposal of by this common judgment. For convenience, the parties are referred as per their rank in the Claim Petitions.

(2.) Brief facts which led to the filing of Claim Petitions are that on 07.9.2003 at about 22.00 hours, Claimants were travelling in Tata Sumo car bearing registration No.TN-01 M 0036 from south to north in East Coast Road. When the car was proceeding near Soolerikadu bus stop, the driver of the car drove the same in a very high speed and on seeing the cow coming, the driver swerved the car, lost control and that the car fell into 20 feet deep ditch and was capsized. Due to the impact, the Claimants who travelled in the Tata Sumo sustained multiple grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, some of the injured were admitted in Suradeep Hospital, Mamallapuram and some of them were admitted in City Tower Hospital, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Regarding the accident, criminal case was registered against the Tata Sumo car driver in Crime No.314 of 2003 under Sections 279, 337, 338 I.P.C. of E1 Mamallapuram Police Station. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo car driver, Claimants have filed the Claim Petitions claiming compensation.

(3.) Resisting the Claim Petitions, Insurance Company has filed the counter contending that Tata Sumo car was insured infavour of 3rd Respondent-Rajendran as private vehicle and the same was sold infavour of 1st Respondent-Saravanan prior to the date of accident and that the same was not intimated to the Insurance Company either by the 2nd Respondent or by the 1st Respondent. It is averred that since the 2nd Respondent ceased to have any insurable interest, Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the 1st Respondent. It is further averred that the driver of the car had no valid driving licence to drive the car. Denying the averments set out in the Claim Petitions, Insurance Company stated that the Claimants are entitled only "no fault liability" that too subject to establishing the requirements.