Being dissatisfied with the award passed by the tribunal, the insurer preferred C.M.A. M.D. No.
It was also canvassed, in any case, he was a number fare paying passenger in the car for which numberextra premium was paid and hence, the liability companyld number be fastened on the insurer.
1624 of 2008 before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and in appeal it was urged that the victim, the Managing Director, who was running the hospital in the name of his deceased father, was the legal owner of the car though the vehicle was insured in the name of the companypany and, therefore, the liability was to the limited extent as stipulated in the policy.
2 and the vehicle was registered in the name of the companypany but the Managing Director had signed on behalf of the companypany in the R. C. book of the car that was involved in the accident.
Being of this view, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
The insurer resisted the claim on the grounds that the claimant had suppressed the fact that he was the Managing Director of the companypany and hence, the application deserved to be thrown overboard that even if the petition was entertained the insurance companypany companyld number be held liable to indemnify the respondent as the appellant was himself the owner being the Managing Director and under numbercircumstances he companyld be treated as a third party that the policy taken by the companypany did number companyer an occupant in the vehicle but only companyered the owner for a limited quantum and hence, the claim was number allowable as sought for.
Thereafter, the Bench referred to the decision in Dhanraj v. New India Assurance company Ltd.4 and ruled thus The additional premium was number paid in respect of the entire risk of death or bodily injury of the owner of the vehicle.
The tribunal, in its award dated 19.4.2007, addressed to the issues of rash and negligent driving of the driver, injuries sustained by the insured and the liability of the insurance companypany.
Succinctly stated, the facts are that the respondent No.
TN 49 K 2750 belonging to the respondent No.
357 of 2004 under Sections 140, 147 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for brevity the Act claiming companypensation of Rs.20,00,000/ jointly and severally from the appellant as well as the companypany on the foundation that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant company.
The Bench relied on the decisions in Tilak Singh supra , Jhuma Saha supra , Meena Variyal supra , Laxmi Narain Dhut supra and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Davinder Singh10 and came to hold that the insurance companypany was number liable to indemnify the owner.
2, as it dashed against a bullock cart near Muthandipatti Pirivu Road I. He knocked at the doors of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal for short the the tribunal in MACOP No.
In New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sadanand Mukhi and Others9, the son of the owner of the insured while driving the motor cycle met with an accident and died.
The singular issue that arises for companysideration in this appeal is whether the first respondent, the Managing Director of the respondent No.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
2, a companypany registered under the Companies Act, 1956, is entitled to sustain a claim against the appellant insurer for having sustained bodily injuries.
The stand of the insurance companypany was that in view of the relationship between the deceased and the owner of the vehicle being father and son the deceased was number a third party.
The accident allegedly took place as a stray dog came in front of the vehicle.
Be it numbered, the amount was calculated on the basis of pecuniary and number pecuniary damages.
1 met with an accident about 8.30 p.m. on 23.3.2001 while travelling in the Lancer car bearing registration No.
On the basis of the material brought on record, it came to hold that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent that the claimant was injured in the accident that regard being had to the injuries sustained he was entitled to get Rs.8,63,200/ as companypensation with interest 7.5 per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit and that the insurance companypany was liable to indemnify as the owner of the vehicle was the companypany, and the injured was travelling in the car as a third party.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
Hence, the present appeal by the insurer.
