WHETHER TRIBUNAL EMPOWERED
TO ADJUDICATE CLAIM PETITION IN RESPECT OF OWNER CUM DRIVER ON BASIS OF
PERSONAL ACCIDENT POLICY IS UNCONNECTED WITH PROVISIONS OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.
The answer is tribunal is not
empowered to adjudicate claim petition in respect of insurance policy
unconnected with the provisions of MV act. It is clearly discussed in
2020(1)TNMAC 600, Branch manager, Oriental insurance co.ltd.THIRUVANNAMALAI.
VS Poongavanam & 4 others.
The case of the petitioner is as
explained hereunder:
On 28/11/2008 at about 2.00 AM the
deceased Mani was driving his own lorry bearing regn.no. TAL 6725 from
Thiruvannamalai towards Bangalore. When the said lorry was proceeding at
Thiruvannamai to krishnagiri road near Chinnapanamutlu Gowtham Dhaba hotel, a
cow suddenly crossed the road and the driver suddenly applied break, lost
control over the vehicle and hit at the tamarind tree. In the said accident,
the above said mani sustained injuries and then after continuous treatment died
on 8.1.2009. The first petitioner is the wife and 2nd to 5th
petitioners are the daughters of the deceased. The offending vehicle belongs to
the deceased and the vehicle is insured with respondent’s insurance company.
The insurance company
filed a counter affidavit before the claims tribunal, setting out the defense
as under:
The petition is
false, vexatious and not sustainable both on law and on facts. The respondent
does not admit any of the allegations contained in the petition save those that
are specifically admitted herein and put the petitioners to strict proof. This
respondent in the first instance submits that the liability of this respondent
is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and any violations of
conditions of policy will disentitle the petitioners from claiming any relief
against this respondent. The owner cum driver is not a third party. No special
premium is paid for the owner’s liability. The petitioners are not entitled to
compensation as the policy of insurance covers only to third parties. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.
The tribunal adjudicated the
issues with reference to the documents and evidences produced by the respective
parties and regarding the liability to pay compensation for the death of the
owner cum driver of the lorry bearing regn.no. TAL 6725, the tribunal arrived a
finding that the claimant being legal representative of the deceased Mani are
not entitled for compensation under the policy marked as Ex.R1 as the said Mani
met with an accident, while he was driving the lorry as owner cum driver and the policy taken by him is only an
act policy. The tribunal rejected the compensation on the ground that it is an
act policy, and the accident claims tribunal cannot grant compensation. The
policy marked as Ex R1, is a standalone policy and independent and therefore,
based on the said policy, compensation cannot be claimed. However the tribunal
further adjudicated whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation under
personal accident policy of insurance?. If so, what shall be the quantum and
from whom?
As far as the
personal accident policy is concerned, the tribunal relied relied on certain
judgments. The tribunal considered personal accident policy marked as Ex.R2 and
relied on the judgment in case of Bajaj alliance general insurance company
ltd., VS C. Ramesh 2013 (1) TNMAC 325.
In the personal accident policy, the maximum compensation shall not exceed the
amount mentioned in the policy. Therefore, the tribunal formed an opinion that
the fixed compensation as per the personal accident policy is to be granted in
favour of the claimant.
The personal
accident individual policy marked as ex.R2 is a standalone policy and
admittedly not under the motor vehicles act. The motor vehicles act being a
special legislation and the motor accidents claims tribunal is constituted to
deal with the accident claims, specifically and only under the provisions of
the motor vehicles act, the said tribunal cannot have jurisdiction to deal with
the other policies issued by the insurance companies and in such an event, the
policy holder is entitled to claim benefit under the standalone policy by
approaching the appropriate forum.
It is relevant to
consider that the motor vehicles policies are issued by the insurance companies
for the purpose of grant of compensation i.e. the language employed is ‘compensation’.
However, in the personal accident policy, it is clearly stated that the ‘benefit’
is to be granted. Thus, the word compensation adopted under the motor vehicle
policies cannot be equated with benefits to be granted under the personal
accidents policy, which is independent and unconnected with the provisions of
the motor vehicles act as well as the compensation to be granted under the
motor vehicles act. This being the basic difference in respect of the personal
accident policy, the tribunal cannot have any jurisdiction, so as to adjudicate
the issues with reference to such standalone policies and if such power is
granted, then the scope of the powers conferred under the tribunal is exceeded
and therefore, the court is of the considered opinion that the tribunal has
erroneously exercised its jurisdiction, so as to grant the benefit under the
personal accident policy.
Each policy is a
contract. The terms and conditions of the policies are binding on the parties
to the policy. When the contractual obligations between the parties with
reference to the motor vehicles act is not established, then the tribunal
cannot have any jurisdiction to entertain such disputes, which all are
unconnected with the provisions of the motor vehicles act. Thus, the tribunal
on receipt of any claim petition, at the first instance, must examine, whether
the policy coverage is with reference to the motor vehicles act or with
reference to certain benefits, which is unconnected with the provisions of the
motor vehicles act. Only if it is a compensation, which is agreed under the
policy and the claim petition is filed, claiming compensation under motor
vehicles act, then alone the motor accident claims tribunal would get
jurisdiction to entertain claim petition and decide the issues, but not
otherwise. Therefore the motor accident claims tribunal are duty bound to
examine the nature of the policy as well as the terms and conditions of the
contract at the first instance, before adjudicating the issues with reference
to the grant of compensation. In all such cases, the issue regarding
maintainability is to be taken as a primary issue and only after deciding
primary issue , the other issues can be taken up for consideration by the motor
accidents claims tribunal. Thus the court must be undoubtedly cautious in
entertaining such claim petitions.
This being the factum established,
the court is of considered opinion that the tribunal has committed an error in
exercise of it’s jurisdiction and entertained claim petition in violations of
the provisions of the motor vehicles act. It is an admitted fact that the
tribunal granted compensation based on personal accident policy, which cannot
be granted. The awarded amount already deposited has to be reimbursed.
Posts
0 Comments