Dipak Misra JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The singular issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the first Respondent, the Managing Director of the Respondent No. 2, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, is entitled to sustain a claim against the Appellant-insurer for having sustained bodily injuries. Succinctly stated, the facts are that the Respondent No. 1 met with an accident about 8.30 p.m. on 23.3.2001 while travelling in the Lancer car bearing registration No. TN 49 K 2750 belonging to the Respondent No. 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 tribunal") in MACOP No. 357 of 2004 under Sections 140, 147 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act") claiming compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- jointly and severally from the Appellant as well as the company on the foundation that the vehicle in question was insured with the Appellant-company. Be it noted, the amount was calculated on the basis of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
3. The insurer resisted the claim on the grounds that the claimant had suppressed the fact that he was the Managing Director of the company and hence, the application deserved to be thrown overboard; that even if the petition was entertained the insurance company could not be held liable to indemnify the Respondent as the Appellant was himself the owner being the Managing Director and under no circumstances he could be treated as a third party; that the policy taken by the company did not cover an occupant in the vehicle but only covered the owner for a limited quantum and hence, the claim was not allowable as sought for.
4. 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 company. 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 compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit; and that the insurance company was liable to indemnify as the owner of the vehicle was the company, and the injured was travelling in the car as a third party.
5. Being dissatisfied with the award passed by the tribunal, the insurer preferred C.M.A. (M.D.) No. 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 company and, therefore, the liability was to the limited extent as stipulated in the policy. It was also canvassed, in any case, he was a non-fare paying passenger in the car for which no extra premium was paid and hence, the liability cou........