Madras High Court
The National Insurance Company ... vs Tmt.Jeeva on 21 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.3104 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.M.A.No.3104 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
The National Insurance Company Ltd.,
represented by its Branch Manager,
Branch Office, 3rd Floor,
Anuradha Complex, Bangalore Road,
Krishnagiri Town and District. ... Appellant
-vs-
1.Tmt.Jeeva
2.Selvi.Praveena
3.Selvi.Sathiyavathi
4.Minor.Arunkumaran
(Minor respondent represented by his next
friend mother and first respondent Tmt.Jeeva)
5.K.J.Manikandan
6.S.Boopalan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 05.01.2012
made in O.P.No.608 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Krishnagiri.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3104 of 2013
For Appellant : Mr.D.Bhaskaran
For Respondents : Mr.M.Jayachandran for R1 to R4
R5 Notice Served
R6 Not Ready in Notice
*********
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Judgment
and Decree dated 05.01.2012 made in O.P.No.608 of 2009 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Krishnagiri.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder
according to their litigative status before the Tribunal.
3. The case of the claimants is that on 25.05.2007, when the deceased
was riding the Motor Cycle belonging to the second respondent insured
with the third respondent, the offending vehicle owned by the first
respondent was driven in a rash and negligent manner and while trying to
overtake the lorry, the driver lost his control and dashed against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3104 of 2013
deceased vehicle, due to which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries on his
vital organs. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Head Quarters
Hospital, Krishnagiri and thereafter, he was referred to an Hospital at
Bangalore. Unfortunately, on the way to Bangalore, he died. At the time of
accident, the deceased was only 42 years. He was a Contract Supervisor
and was earning Rs.3,300/- per month. Hence, the claim petition.
4. Resisting the same, the third respondent filed the counter
specifically stating that the deceased was not having valid license to drive
the Motor Cycle, which belonged to the second respondent and insured with
the third respondent. Further, only due to the rash and negligent driving of
the vehicle belonging to the first respondent, the accident took place and in
fact, the FIR was registered as against the rider of the vehicle owned by the
first respondent. Thereafter, charge sheet was filed as against the rider of
the Motor Cycle belonging to the first respondent. Therefore, the vehicle
driven by the deceased which belonged to the second respondent and
insured with the third respondent is no way connected for the accident.
Therefore, the third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3104 of 2013
5. On the side of the claimants, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.P1 to
Ex.P9 were marked. On the side of the respondent, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were
examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 were marked. On perusal of the evidence
available on record and also considering the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing on either side, the Tribunal held that a sum of
Rs.4,50,800/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand Eight Hundred only) is
payable as compensation, with the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, by
the second and third respondents jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the
same, the appellant / third respondent filed the present Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that
admittedly, the vehicle owned by the first respondent was driven in a rash
and negligent manner when the accident took place. The said vehicle was
not insured with any of the Insurance Company. The charge sheet was also
laid as against the rider of the Motor Cycle, which was owned by the first
respondent. The Tribunal, unfortunately, wrongly construed that the
vehicle belonged to the first respondent and insured with the third
respondent and awarded compensation payable by the second and third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3104 of 2013
respondents jointly and severally. All along, the Tribunal held that only
because of the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent vehicle, the
accident took place and that the Tribunal wrongly construed that the vehicle
was insured with the third respondent and awarded compensation. Thus,
the third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation, since, the third
respondent is not the insurer of the vehicle belonged to the first respondent
and as such, the first respondent is liable to pay the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants would
submit that the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased and that the
accident took place only because of the rash and negligent driving of the
rider of the vehicle belonged to the first respondent. Though the offending
vehicle was not insured, the third respondent is liable to pay compensation
with liberty to recover the same from the first respondent.
8. Heard Mr.D.Bhaskaran, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.M.Jayachandran, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 to 4.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3104 of 2013
9. The claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased. When the
deceased was riding the Motor Cycle belongs to the second respondent
insured with the third respondent on 25.05.2007, another Motor Cycle
which belonged to the first respondent was driven by the person in a rash
and negligent manner and while he tried to overtake the lorry, he lost his
control and dashed against the deceased vehicle, due to which the deceased
sustained fatal injuries on his vital organs. Immediately, he was taken to
Government Hospital, Krishnagiri and he was referred to higher Hospital at
Bangalore, but on the way to Bangalore in the ambulance, he died.
10. The only point for consideration in the present appeal is that
whether the third respondent is liable to pay compensation or not.
Admittedly, the vehicle owned by the first respondent had caused the
accident. The FIR was registered as against the rider of the Motor Cycle
belonged to the first respondent and he was also charge sheeted by the
Inspector of Police, Mathur Police Station, Krishnagiri District in Crime
No.315 of 2007. The charge sheet is marked as Ex.R5. The Tribunal also
rightly concluded that the accident took place only because of the rash and
negligent driving of the vehicle owned by the first respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3104 of 2013
11. Unfortunately the said Motor Vehicle was not insured with the
Insurance Company and the vehicle which was driven by the deceased
belonged to the second respondent and insured with the third respondent.
But, the Tribunal wrongly construed that the vehicle owned by the first
respondent was insured with the third respondent and held that with the
second and third respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the claimants.
12. Though the first respondent's vehicle was not insured with the
Insurance Company, the first respondent is liable to pay compensation as
awarded by the Tribunal.
13. In the result the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed as
follows:-
(i) The first respondent is liable to pay compensation as awarded by
the Tribunal and directed to deposit the award amount with interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum within a period of six weeks from the date of the
receipt of the order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3104 of 2013
(ii) The award amount will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit.
(iii) On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the
amount awarded as above, by filing proper application before the Tribunal.
(iv) The amount deposited by the third respondent is permitted to
withdraw the same by the third respondent.
(v) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.04.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rna
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3104 of 2013
To
1.The Principal District Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.3104 of 2013
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rna
C.M.A.No.3104 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
21.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
