UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD DINDIGUL Vs. MEENAMBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON JUDGMENT There were two claim petitions viz., M.C.O.P. No. 976789 and M.C.O.P. No. 4/91 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Trichirapalli. In the first case, the insured claimant was the owner of the goods carried in the lorry. He claimed compensation at Rs. 2,00,000/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,27,500/- with interest. In the second case, the claimants are the legal representatives of the driver, who drove the lorry referred to above and who died in the accident. In the second case the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Insurance Company is before this Court in both the matters challenging the award on the following grounds: The insurance company cannot be made liable as far as the award in O.P. No. 976/89 is concerned, since the insured was travelling in the lorry along with his goods as its owner, and therefore, his risk need not be covered under the Motor Vehicles Act and in fact was not covered. As far as the award in O.P. No. 4/91 is concerned, the case of the Insurance Company is that since the deceased is the driver of the vehicle itself and it has been found that the said driver was solely responsible for the accident, his employer cannot be said to be legally liable for anything on the ground of vicarious liability. In the absence of such legal liability on the part of the employer, the insurance company cannot be made liable under the provisions of Motor Vehicle:. Act. In support of the contention raised challenging the award in O.P. No. 4/91, learned counsel brought to my notice the following judgments, viz., Mallika v. S.V. Alagarsami (1981) 94 L.W. 651) National Insurance Company Limited, Ttrupur v. R. Mohan & another (1995-1-L.W. 730) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pandurangan (H (1997) ACC 668 = 1997-1-L.W. 59.) All the three cases are rendered by three separate Division Benches of this Court. In all those cases it was held that in such circumstances as available in the case, the Insurance Company need not indemnify the insured and therefore the claim petition is not maintainable.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel appearing on either side on the legality or otherwise of the award in O.P. No. 4/91 and in the light of the judgments referred to above. I have no hesitation to hold that the Insurance Company cannot be made liable under the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, the award in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased driver, who are the claimants in O.P. No. 4/91 cannot be sustained. At the same time, the liability of the Insurance Company under the provisions of workmen's Compensation Act cannot be lost sight of. The claimants are given option either to come before the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act or go before the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act. Had the claimants in O.P. No. 4/91 chosen the course under the Workmens Compensation Act, then they would have definitely had an award in their favour. Therefore, solely with a view not to drive the claimants to go before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and work out their rights under that Act, this court suggested to the counsel for the insurance Company to find out the feasibility of passing the award limiting the liability of the Insurance Company under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act. Mr. R. Vedantham learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company seeing this point in all fairness suggested to this Court, after working out the liability under the provisions of Workmens Compensation Act, that the claimants would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 72,548/- on account of the death of the deceased in this case in the course of his employment. Taking to Rs. 400/- as his monthly earning and going by the age factor of 181.37, the amount of Rs. 72,548/- was suggested to this Court. The said calculation appears to be correct. This sum of Rs. 72,548/- can be conveniently rounded off to Rs. 75,000/-.