9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed with the appellant – Held that:- first respondent-claimant is not the owner of the car and that the appellant-insurance company is liable to pay compensation for the injuries suffered to the first respondent, while he travelled as an occupant of the car. - C.M.A. (MD) NO. 1624 OF 2008 - - - Dated:- 2-3-2011 - D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J. S. Ramachandran for the Appellant. N. Balakrishnan and R. Muruganandam for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. The appellant-insurance company has questioned the order and decree dated 19-4-2007, passed in M.A.C.O.P. No. 357 of 2004 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Pattukkottai on the sole ground that the first respondent, being the owner of the vehicle that was insured w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. His face got disfigured. His speech power also got reduced. He could not freely open his mouth. He could not hear well. It affected his medical practice seriously. According to him, he suffered 60 per cent. permanent partial disability. ( c )Hence, the first respondent herein filed a petition in M.A.C.O.P. No. 357 of 2004 under sections 140, 147 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the second respondent and appellant herein, claiming a sum of Rs. 20,00,000 as compensation, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Pattukkottai. The appellant insurance company was shown as the second respondent and the second respondent-company was shown as the first respondent in the claim petition. ( d )The appellant-insuran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. As stated above, the only issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the first respondent-claimant is the owner of the car and in that event, he could not claim compensation as the insurance policy exhibit A16 (exhibits B3 and B5) does not cover the risk of the owner of the vehicle. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the first respondent, being the managing director who represented the second respondent-company and signed on behalf of the second respondent-company in the R.C. Book of the car, is the real owner of the car. Learned counsel relied on a number of judgments that risk of the owner of the vehicle is not covered statutorily under the Motor Vehicles Act and the insurance polic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the insurance company is bound to pay compensation to the occupant of the car. He also relied on a judgment of this court in Chamundeeswari v. CTO [2007] 78 SCL 151 (Mad.) to show that the distraint proceedings initiated by the Commercial Tax Department against the directors of the company in respect of sales tax dues from the company was quashed. The said judgment supports the case of the first respondent that the managing director is a different person from that of the company. 8. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9. Exhibit B1 is the certificate of incorporation incorporating the second respondent-company under the Companies Act. As per incorporation, the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistered owner of the car is the second respondent-company and not the first respondent-claimant. In this regard, the first page of the R.C. Book of the car, which involved in the accident is extracted hereunder : "Name of registered owner son/wife/daughter of : M/s. Kanakesa Thevar Full address (permanent) : Memorial Hospital P. Ltd., No. 66, Chinnaiah Street, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur. Full address (temporary) : ACT India Chennai-20. Age : Date 8-3-2000" 12. When the registering authority signed the R.C. Book, the first respondent-claimant singed as managing direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titled to compensation and on the other hand, if he is not a owner, then he is entitled to compensation. Admittedly, when the other person, who travelled along with the first respondent-claimant, died in the accident, his legal heirs were paid compensation by the appellant-insurance company based on the policy. Likewise, it is not disputed that the second respondent-company was paid for the damages caused to the car due to the accident based on the policy. 15. Hence, I am of the considered view that the first respondent-claimant is not the owner of the car and that the appellant-insurance company is liable to pay compensation for the injuries suffered to the first respondent, while he travelled as an occupant of the car. The judgment re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
