The Madras High Court has reprimanded an insurance company for filing revision petitions against the decree of a paltry compensation awarded to accident victims by a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) in 2002.
Dismissing the revision petitions, Justice K.Chandru observed: “Today, in the field of insurance, when private operators are also in the field, a public sector insurer must think twice before venturing into litigation and must consciously make a cost-benefit analysis. They should not end up being penny-wise pound foolish.”
The National Insurance Company, Mettur Dam branch, challenged the judgment and decree of the MACT, Dharmapuri dated March 22, 2002 by which a compensation of Rs.6,000 was paid to each of the victims of an accident.
Thangavel, Periya Sami and Kaveri along with several others were travelling in a van, a goods carrier, after paying the driver, from Kattiyampatti market to Sevattipatti on June 24, 2001.
The vehicle met with an accident. The tribunal did not grant the full compensation claimed by the three and ordered only Rs.6000 with a counsel fee of Rs.1000.
Mr. Justice Chandru said the revision petitions had been filed notwithstanding the fact that the Motor Vehicles Act had forbidden any appeal being filed when the amount in dispute in the appeal was less than Rs.10,000. “It is a classic case where a public sector is spending more amount than what is to be paid as compensation to the claimants.” The judge said the grounds cited in the revision petition was that the insurance company did not cover passenger traffic.
However, counsel was unable to submit as to how such a revision was maintainable.
He declined to condone the delay in filing the revision. Even in prosecuting such revisions, due diligence was not shown. The reason adduced for condoning the delay of nearly four years was also not convincing. Mr. Justice Chandru said the accident took place in June 2001.
The tribunal ordered a meagre compensation in March 2002. Even after eight years, the claimants were unable to be located for serving the notice on them and also the fact that under Section 173 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, Parliament itself had denied right of appeal. It was not as if the claimants were fictitious persons. The three had been examined before the tribunal.
Ingenious methods
Insurance companies taking recourse to such ingenious methods of filing revisions when appeals were denied by law, the very filing of revision itself was an abuse of the process of law, he said.
