The tribunals having exclusive jurisdiction to one act must take the primary question as nature of case and can proceed only if satisfied

Yugashree | School of Law Sastra University, Thanjavur | 28 March 2020

The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Poongavanam and others

Facts

• Mani While driving a lorry which is owned by him from Tiruvannamalai towards Bangalore a cow suddenly crossed the lorry and out which he applied brake however he lost control of the vehicle resulting in hitting a tree on road side. Out of which Mani sustained injuries resulting in death even after treatments given to him.
• The petitioners are wife and 4 daughters of the deceased and he was earning person of his family and on the death of him the family members are under loss and helpless. The vehicle is insured with the insurance company. The petitioner claims Rs.10,00,000 as a compensation which is to be paid by the respondent.
• But the respondent’s insurance company filed a counter affidavit stating that the petition is false, vexatious and not sustainable both on law and they put petitioners to strict proof. Further they also stated that the owner cum driver of the lorry is not a third party and no special premium is paid by him. There was delay in filing FIR 
• The negligence being on the side of the owner cum driver of the Lorry the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation and no post-mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased and the owner of the vehicle died due to some other reasons.
• The petitioners are not entitled for compensation as the insurance covers only third parties and the petitioners who were not the legal heirs of the daughters as well as age and income of the deceased mentioned in the petition is also false.
• The tribunal referred to documents and evidences with regard to issues and arrived at decisions. The legal representatives of Mani are not entitled for compensation with regard to the policy and the tribunal referred a few cases with regard to personal insurance claims. the Tribunal formed an opinion that the fixed compensation as per the personal accident policy is to be granted in favour of the claimant and held that the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition for grant of compensation under the personal accident policy.
• And also stated that The Motor Vehicles Act is a special legislation and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is constituted to deal with accident claims, specifically and only under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the said Tribunal is not competent to deal with the other policies issued by the insurance companies and in such a case the policyholder is entitled to claim benefits under the Motor Vehicles Act.
• The “benefits” to be granted under a personal accident policy that is independent and unrelated to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the compensation to be granted under the Motor Vehicles Act.
• This is the fundamental difference in terms of personal accident policy, the Tribunal cannot have any jurisdiction to adjudicate matters relating to these stand-alone policies and, where such authority is given, the limit of the powers conferred by the Tribunal shall be exceeded and, hence, the Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has wrongly exercised such powers.
• When the contract between the parties must be in relation with Motor Vehicles Act and if not the tribunal cannot have jurisdiction. Whenever there is case before the tribunal it should examine whether the policy coverage is with reference to Motor vehicles act or with reference to benefits which are completely two different aspects.
• The motor accident claims tribunal is duty bound to examine the nature of the policy as well as the terms of the contract and in all such cases determining the nature of the case must be the 1^st issue and the tribunal has to continue only if the nature of the case is under Motor Accident Claims.

Held:

• In that judgment, the powers conferred on the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal were not adjudicated in detail by the Courts.
• If, under the Motor Vehicles Act, there is a provision to entertain a claim complaint in respect of the policies, otherwise the other policies, all of which are unconnected with the Act, cannot be entertained by the Motor Accident Compensation Tribunal and the beneficiary of these policies is obliged to approach the appropriate Court for the purpose of obtaining the benefit.
• The tribunal had committed and error in exercise of its Jurisdiction and entertained the claim violating provisions of Motor Accident Claims act.
• The judgement and the decree made by the tribunal has been set aside and the court made it clear that the respondent are free to approach competent forum for the purpose of claiming benefits and the awarded benefit deposited on the respondents account is reimbursed.