IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 2695 of 2008(E) ------------------------------------- (O.P(MV).NO.57/2002 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM) .................... APPELLANT: ------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, 3RD PARTY WING, OMANA BUILDING PADMA JN, KOCHI-35. BY ADV.SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR. RESPONDENTS/ADDL. PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. A.V.GEORGE, S/O.VARKEY GEORGE, ANCHERIL HOUSE, GANDHI NAGAR P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. DIRECTOR, THAMARAPPALLY RUBBER CO.LTD., P.B.NO.1, KOTTAYAM. 3. ASOKAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, COLACKAL HOUSE, THIRUVANCHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA, SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN, SRI.TERRY V.JAMES, R3 BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KURIAN. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 2695 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in OP(MV) No.57/2002. The claimant while proceeding in a car sustained injuries on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver in the car, in which he was travelling. He claimed a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and the Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.31,000/-with 7% interest and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. The Insurance company would contend that the claimant himself was the owner of the vehicle and therefore, he cannot claim compensation from the company. The trial Judge held that the claimant is not described as a managing director and therefore, he could not be treated as owner of the vehicle and so repelled contention of the insurance company. It is against that decision the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the claimant. The vehicle belongs to Thamarapally rubber company limited represented by its Director. Admittedly, the claimant is a M.A.C.A. No. 2695 of 2008 2 director of the Thamarappally Rubber Company Limitied. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Insurance company being a director-cum-share holder of the company and his status would be that of an owner, for the reason that the affairs of the company is managed by board of directors and therefore, the board of directors will have the charactertistics of owners and therefore, the owner cannot claim compensation for himself. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant would contend that though he is a director of a company as he is not the managing director and he is not the owner and therefore, he is entitled to claim compensation from the insurance company. There is a decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court reported in (2004 ACJ 880) Mahesh Chand Vs. A.K. Chakravarthy and others, it was a case where the claimant file an application showing one of the persons of a company as owner. The Tribunal accepted and granted an order. In appeal, the Division Bench held that there cannot be any dispute about the proposition that the individual cannot be a proprietor of a company incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act. M.A.C.A. No. 2695 of 2008 3 An incorporated company is a distinct legal entity managed by its board of directors. It was further observed that the owner therein was not even shown to be a share holder or a director of a company. Therefore, on those premises, the Hon'ble High Court negatived the contentions to make him liable. Now so far as the present case is concerned the claimant is the Director of the company and he is also a share holder of the company. The affairs of the company are managed by the directors of the company and further insurance policy is also taken in the name of the director representing the company. So it has to be treated that the welfare of the company is also on the director. When one is the director and shareholder of a company and the policy is also in the name of the director and as the affairs of the company are controlled by the Board of Directors it has to be held that the director can be treated as an owner for the purpose of M.V.Act. So far as a vehicle is concerned when it is so and the appellant being an owner cannot claim compensation on the basis of policy issued in the name of the Director. Therefore, the finding of a tribunal that the insurance company has to pay the amount is M.A.C.A. No. 2695 of 2008 4 vacated. Since the driver is also an employee of the company for whose action the owner is vicariously and I am not passing any order against driver. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the claim petition is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE ln