Personal Accident Coverage cases can only be tried by civil courts, not Motor Accident Claims Tribunals: Madras HC
By : Legal Era
Update: 2020-09-08 11:40 GMT
story
The Madras High Court has held that, in order to avail the benefit of Personal Accident Coverage Policy, the respondent/claimant has to establish the nature of the 'disablement' and the same is to be established before the competent Court of law and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not empowered to entertain the Claim Petition under the Motor Vehicles Act.Justice S.M. Subramaniam of...
The Madras High Court has held that, in order to avail the benefit of Personal Accident Coverage Policy, the respondent/claimant has to establish the nature of the 'disablement' and the same is to be established before the competent Court of law and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not empowered to entertain the Claim Petition under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Justice S.M. Subramaniam of the Madras High Court held that the Motor Vehicles Act is a Special legislation and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is constituted to deal with the Accident Claims specifically and under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with all other policies issued by the insurance company which all are contractual in nature and the terms and conditions agreed between the parties specifically.
According to the court, Personal Accident Policy claims are different from Motor Vehicle Policy and are to be made before the competent Forum namely before Consumer Forum or before the competent Civil Court.
The Court observed that the Motor Vehicle policies are issued by the Insurance company for the purpose of grant of compensation and the language employed is "Compensation". However, the Personal Accident Coverage Policy reveals that its "benefit" is to be granted. Thus, the word "Compensation" adopted under the Motor Vehicle Policy cannot be equated with the "benefit" to be granted under the Personal Accident Policy, which is independent and unconnected with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as the compensation to be assessed and granted under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Court pointed out the difference between the Motor Vehicle Policy and Personal Accident Coverage Policy. Motor Accident Policies are strictly within the ambit of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Personal Accident Coverage Policy is strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed between the parties. The contractual liability or obligations cannot be adjudicated by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and law does not permit the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to usurp the powers of the competent Civil Court.
The Court went on to hold that if such contractual liabilities are adjudicated before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, then the Tribunal would be exercising excess jurisdiction, which is not contemplated nor conferred under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Justice S.M. Subramaniam also held that the aforementioned distinct factors are to be ascertained with reference to the nature of Insurance Policy, and all the Tribunals are bound to look into the nature of the Policy at the first instance, before entertaining the Claim Petition. The Litigants should not be unnecessarily driven to various Courts by waiting for a long period before the Accident Claims Tribunal.
The Court said, "Whenever a Claim Petition is filed, either under Section 166 or under Section 163-A of the Act or otherwise, the entertainability as well as the maintainability of the Claim Petitions are to be verified with reference to the nature of the policies issued by the Insurance Company. Contrarily, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate the terms and conditions agreed between the parties in a contract and grant compensation by invoking the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act."