UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the Insurance Company, with which the vehicle involved in the accident and against the driver of which vehicle the culpability of being rash and negligent has been found by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Erode, has got to be allowed on a short and at the same time a very potent legal point taken by Mr. K.S. Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.

(2.) There was an accident on 11-5-1980. In that accident, two lorries were involved. One lorry bore the Registration No.MED 4639. It was owned by one N. Ramasami. It was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. It was driven at the time of the accident by one S. Ramasami, who was made as the first respondent before the Tribunal and who is the third respondent herein. The other lorry involved in the accident bore the registration number KPE 9368. The finding of the Tribunal was that it was only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry MED 4639 the accident occurred. Unfortunately, the owner of that lorry MED 4639 N. Ramasami, who was travelling in his lorry, died in that accident, his widow and his minor preferred claim for compensation to the Tribunal. The Tribunal mulcted the liability on the Insurance Company, and this has made the Insurance Company prefer this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

(3.) Mr. K.S. Narasimhan, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, appellant herein, urges that the insured, namely, deceased N. Ramasami was himself the victim in the fatal accident, caused by an act of his own driver and so the legal representatives of the deceased insured cannot make a claim for compensation against the Insurance Company, since the policy of Insurance covered only liability to be incurred by the insured against third parties, in terms of S.95(l)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act 4 of 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Learned counsel bases his argument on the terms of the policy issued in the present case and marked as Ex. P. 1, which we find is in accordance with Section 95 (1)(b)(i) of the Act. That section stands extracted as follows: