NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. KESARI RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the award dated 29 -03 -2004 in O.P.No.123 of 2000 passed by the Chairman, M.A.C.T -cum -II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle (for short ''the Tribunal '') the National Insurance Company Limited/3rd respondent in the O.P preferred the instant appeal.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is thus: a) Kesari Ravi - injured is the claimant. His case is that he works as a cleaner in the jeep bearing No.AP 04 T 2341 owned by the 2nd respondent, insured with 3rd respondent. While so, on 17 -03 -2000 at about 8 am when the claimant was proceeding in his jeep as a cleaner, the jeep driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and when the jeep reached near Piler Railway Station on Piler - Madanapalle Road he dashed against another jeep bearing No.PY 01 M 4745 owned by 1st respondent and insured with 3rd respondent. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries to his left leg. He was shifted to S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupathi where he took treatment as inpatient from 17 -03 -2000 to 11 -05 -2000 and his left leg upto knee joint was amputated as it was badly damaged and he also incurred Rs.20,000/ - towards medical and other expenditure. It is pleaded that prior to accident, he was working as a cleaner under the 2nd respondent and getting Rs.1,500/ - p.m. as salary. It is submitted that a case in Crime No.43/2000 was registered against the driver of jeep bearing No.AP 04 T 2341 and in the said crime, C.C.No.48/2000 was pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piler. On these pleas, the claimant filed O.P.No.123 of 2010 against respondents 1 to 3, who are owner of Jeep bearing No.PY 01 M 4745, owner of Jeep bearing No.AP 04 T 2341 and insurer of the said two Jeeps respectively and claimed Rs.2,50,000/ - as compensation under different heads. b) Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. c) Respondent No.3/insurance company filed written statement and opposed the claim. R.3 denied the age, avocation and income of the claimant and urged to put him to strict proof of the same. R.3 denied the method and manner of occurrence of the accident. R.3 further pleaded that unless it was proved that the person who drove the said two Jeeps were having valid and subsisting licence at the time of accident, it is not liable to pay any compensation. Finally, it contended that the claim is highly excessive and untenable and thus prayed to dismiss the O.P. d) During trial, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked on behalf of claimant. RW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked on behalf of respondents. e) A perusal of the award would show that having regard to the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A1 -F.I.R, Ex.A.3 -charge sheet and Ex.A.4 -certified copy of judgment in C.C.No.48 of 2000, the Tribunal held that the accident was occurred due to the fault of driver of 2nd respondent 's Jeep bearing No.AP 04 T 2341. f) Regarding quantum of compensation, having regard to the evidence on record, the Tribunal observed that claimant has suffered 60% disability due to amputation of his left leg. In such consideration, the Tribunal granted compensation under different heads as follows: Compensation for disability <FRM>JUDGEMENT_168_LAP_2014.htm</FRM> g) Thus, the Tribunal granted total compensation of Rs.2,43,000/ - with proportionate costs and simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of O.P till the date of realization against the respondents 2 and 3. The Tribunal dismissed the claim against respondent No.1. Hence the appeal by the insurance company.

(3.) a) Learned counsel for appellant/insurance company argued that the tribunal committed a gross mistake in fastening the liability of the claimant on the appellant/insurance company. Expatiating it, learned counsel firstly submitted that the crime vehicle i.e., jeep bearing No.AP 04 T 2341 was no doubt covered under Ex.B1 - insurance policy. However, the said policy is only an Act -policy issued to the insured to use the vehicle for his private purpose i.e. social, domestic and pleasure purposes and insured 's own business. The policy dos not cover the use for hire or reward. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the nature of Policy and its terms of the use of the vehicle, the owner is restricted from using the vehicle for hire or reward. However, contrary to the terms stipulated in Ex.B1 -policy, the 2nd respondent -owner hired his vehicle to LM Bank, Piler. As per Ex.A1 - FIR, the vehicle was in fact being used to bring the bank 's Supervisor and on the way the driver admitted some passengers for hire. This is a gross violation of the terms of policy. Since at the time of accident the vehicle was being used for hire in contravention of the terms of policy, he argued, the liability of the insurance company ceased and so it is not liable to pay compensation.