TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 1452
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant, is not entitled to compensation for the injuries suffered, while he travelled in the vehicle. 2. That was the only issue raised by the appellant-insurance company before the Tribunal. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the first respondent herein was not the owner of the vehicle and that the second respondent-company is the owner of the vehicle. In view of such finding, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 8,63,200 with interest at 7.5 per cent. from the date of filing of the petition. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows : (a)The first respondent is a doctor by profession M/s. Kanakesa Thevar Memorial Hospital P. Ltd., the second respondent herein, is a company registered under the Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the claim contending that they are not liable to indemnify the first respondent herein, who happens to be the legal owner of the vehicle in question, and that the first respondent herein, is not covered under the insurance policy, in specific, under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. (e)Before the Tribunal, the first respondent-claimant got examined himself as PW1 and the doctor by name Mr. Sivaraj, who gave the disability certificate, was examined as PW2. On the side of the first respondent-claimant, 16 documents were marked as exhibits A1 to A16. (f)Likewise, the second respondent-company examined its manager as RW1 and the divisional manager of the insurance company was examined as RW2. On the side of the second res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B3 and B5) does not cover the risk of the owner in an accident. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent-claimant submitted that the car which involved in the accident was owned by the second respondent-company, which is registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and it was a distinct entity. He heavily relied on exhibit B1, the certificate of incorporation of the second respondent-company under the Companies Act, 1956. The managing director is in receipt of salary from the company and he is a different person from the company. The managing director could occupy a high position in the company, but he could not be equated with the company. Any liability of the company could not be recovered from the managing director o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpany is Kanakesa Thevar Memorial Hospital Private Limited. The memorandum of association and articles of association of the second respondent-company do form part of exhibit B1. Clause 22 of the memorandum of the association is relevant for the purpose of this case and the same reads as follows : "To initiate, conduct, defend or compound any legal proceedings by or against the company or its officers or otherwise concerning the affairs of the company and to pay, satisfy or compromise any claim made against the company or any of its officers notwithstanding that the claim may not be valid in law." 10. As per clause 28(i ) of the articles of association, the company shall not have less than two and not more than ten directors. Clause 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mited. That could not make him the owner of the vehicle. Furthermore, exhibit A16 (exhibits B3 and B5) insurance policy was issued in the name of Kanakesa Thevar Memorial Hospital Private Limited, and not in the name of the first respondent-claimant. That is, the appellant-insurance company also recognise that the second respondent-company as the owner of the vehicle and not the first respondent-managing director. In order to avoid liability, the appellant-insurance company could not simply say that the managing director is the legal owner of the vehicle. 13. In ground No. 3 of the appeal, the appellant states that the first respondent himself has taken the policy of insurance with the appellant. As stated above, it is not factually corr....