NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. V. MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the case of an injury caused on account of the accident took place on 13.04.2001 around 02.00 p.m on Karambakudi to Malaiyur road near Ariyandi Pirivu road. The injured victim filed an application seeking compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Pudukkottai, and the Tribunal considering the facts and the circumstances of the case, awarded Rs.2,53,870.00 as total compensation with interest at 9% per annum. Challenging the award, the National Insurance Company preferred CMA(MD)No.988 of 2005 and not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the injured/claimant preferred CMA(MD)No. 1259 of 2005, seeking enhancement of compensation.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company contended that the vehicle met with the accident, is a goods vehicle and as per the policy conditions and the conditions of the registration, only two persons are permitted to travel in the said vehicle, including the driver and no coverage is given in respect of a third person, who was travelling in the goods vehicle. Learned counsel for the insurance company further contended that in respect of two persons covered by policy, including the cleaner, the claims were settled and the documents were marked before the Tribunal, to establish that they have complied with the policy conditions. In respect of the third person, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. To substantiate this, the Registration Certificate of the goods vehicle as well as the policy of insurance were marked as Exs.R1 and R2 and these documents were not disputed by the injured claimant before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal erroneously found that there was violation of policy conditions as well as the conditions stipulated in the Registration Certificate of the goods vehicle, and awarded compensation, on the ground that the claimant was travelling as owner of the goods and therefore, he is covered under the insurance policy.

(3.) Learned counsel for the claimant opposed the contentions of the insurance company, by stating that only two persons can be covered under the policy and the claimant being the owner of the goods, is entitled to get compensation from the insurance company. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following decisions:-