ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. PANDURANGAN DEAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been preferred by Oriental Insurance Company Limited Tirunelveli, against the common award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Tuticorin in M.A. C.T.O. Ps. Nos. 202/89, 26/90 and 22/91. The facts leading to the filing of the above appeals are briefly stated hereunder:-On 19-6-1989 at about 2.00 a.m. while claimant in M.A.C.T.O.P. 1110. 22 of 91 was driving a car bearing registration No. T.D.T. 3939, the claimant in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 26 of 1990 who is the owner of the said car and one Pandurangan, claimant, in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 26 of 1990 who is the owner of thesaid car and one Pandurangan, claimant, in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 202 of 1989 who sustained grievous injuries (later died due to the injuries), met with an accident with another lorry and dashed against a culvert on the right side of the road. On the fateful day, in the said car, the claimant in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 202 of 1989, Sub Inspector of Police and 2 other police constables escorted Mr. Veerappandi Arumugham, Minister, who was proceeding towards, Madurai. The car was driven by one Manthiramoorthy, claimant in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 22 of 1991. The said car belongs to one V. Radhakrishnan, claimant in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 26 of 1990. One of the constables, who was travelling in the said car, was examined as P.W. 2 as eye witness. The driver of the car was also examined as P. W. 6. First Information Report has been marked as Ex. P-1. After pointing out discrepancy in the oral evidence of P. W. 2 and P. W. 6 and in the light of the other documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was solely due to the rashness and negligence of P. W. 6, the driver of the car T.D.T. 3939, who is also claimant in M.A.C.T. No. 22 of 1991. There is no dispute with regard to the said finding and we are also in agreement with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal on this aspect.

(2.) After finding that the accident had happened due to the negligence of the driver of the said car, the Tribunal after rejecting the objection of the Insurance Company, namely, that the said car was requisitioned by the State of Tamil Nadu for their use, to provide escort to the Minister who was proceeding towards Madurai, passed an award of Rs. 10,80,000/-in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 202 of 1989, a sum of Rs. 47,330.72 in M.A. C.T.O.P. No. 26 of 1990 and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 22 of 1991, in all the three cases, the Tribunal granted interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of the petition till the date of realisation of the award amount. Aggrieved by the said awards, the Insurance Company has filed the three appeals before this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

(3.) Mr. K.S. Narasimhan, learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following submissions:-(1) Inasmuch as the said vehicle which was involved in the accident was taken over by the Government under the Tamil Nadu Requisitioning of Motor Vehicles Act, 1970 and under those circumstance, the ownership is vested with the Government of Tamil Nadu and in view of general exception clause 7 of the Policy which is marked as Ex. R-8, if at all any compensation is to be paid, only the Government of Tamil Nadu alone is liable to pay such compensation to the victims.(2) The claim made by the owner of the vehicle as against the insurer in M.A.C. T.O.P. No. 26 of 1990 (C.M.A. 123 of 1993) is not maintainable under law, since he had not suffered any legal liability to be indemnified by his insurer for which he relied on an unreported Division Bench decision of this court in C.M.A. No. 253 of 1991 dated 30-9-1991.(3) The claimant in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 22 of 1991 being a tort feasor and negligent as per the finding of the Tribunal is not entitled to claim any compensation under the law of Torts for which he relied on the decision reported in 1993 ACJ 522. The learned counsel has also relied on the following decisions in order to strengthen the above proposition:-(i) Decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 1989 ACJ 596.(ii) Division Bench judgment of Gauhati High Court reported in 1989 ACJ 348.(iii) Division Bench judgment of Mysore High Court reported in AIR 1970 Mysore 13; and(iv) Unreported decisions rendered by this court in C.M.As. Nos. 265 of 80 and 113 of 81.