Madras High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Murugan on 28 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.1832 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.M.A.No.1832 of 2010
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office No.178, I Floor,
Dr.Nanjappa Road, Coimbatore. ... Appellant
Versus
1.Murugan
2.N.Nagaraj
3.National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Branch Office, Mettupalayam-4.
4.N.Sarguna ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2009 made in
M.A.C.T.O.P.No.622 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Additional Special Judge, Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Mr.M.J.Vijayaraghavan
For R1 : Not ready in notice
For R2 & R4 : Exparte
For R3 : M/s.R.Ratna Tara
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1832 of 2010
JUDGMENT
This appeal is laid as against the judgment and decree dated
23.04.2009 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.622 of 2008 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Special Judge, Krishnagiri, thereby
awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.47,610/-
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 claimant is that on 30.06.2005, when the claimant
was travelling in a Minidoor Auto bearing Registration No.TN.38-S-8292,
proceeding in Perundurai to Kovai NH Road, keeping left of the road and
driven in a cautious manner and nearing Sanarpalayam Branch Road, at that
time, a lorry belonged to the first respondent and insured with the second
respondent bearing Registration No.TN-40-7749 came in the opposite
direction, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Minidoor
and caused accident. Due to the said accident, the claimant has sustained
multiple injuries. The claimant has claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as
compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the fourth respondent filed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1832 of 2010
present appeal questioning the negligence on the part of the driver of the
vehicle owned by the third respondent, insured with the fourth respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that admittedly,
the claimant had travelled in a Minidoor Auto owned by the third
respondent insured with the fourth respondent, a lorry owned by the first
respondent insured with the second respondent, hit against the auto and
caused accident. Due to which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries
and claimed compensation.
5. The Tribunal had concluded that only due to the negligent driving
on the part of the lorry, belonging to the first respondent, insured with the
second respondent, the accident had taken place and they are liable to pay
compensation. Unfortunately, while concluding the issue, the Court below,
wrongly considered that the lorry was owned by the third respondent and
was insured with the fourth respondent and they are liable to pay
compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1832 of 2010
6. A perusal of the records reveals that the claimant was travelled in
a minidoor auto owned by the third respondent, insured with the fourth
respondent. The driver of the lorry had driven a lorry in a rash and
negligent manner, hit against the auto and caused accident. The lorry owned
by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. The FIR
marked as EX.P1 reveals that the accident took place only on the negligent
driving on the part of the driver of the lorry, which is owned by the first
respondent. Therefore, the Tribunal wrongly considered that the lorry,
which is caused accident owned by the third respondent and insured with
the fourth respondent and awarded compensation and the same is payable by
the third and fourth respondent jointly and severally.
7. In view of the above, the order and decree dated 23.04.2009 made
in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.622 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Additional Special Judge, Krishnagiri, is hereby set aside, so far as
the liability fastened as against the third and fourth respondent alone and it
is ordered that the first and second respondents are liable to pay
compensation to the claimant. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1832 of 2010
is allowed. The fourth respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount
deposited, if any. It is made clear that if the claimant already withdrawn the
amount, the fourth respondent is at liberty to recover the same from the
second respondent in the manner known to law. No costs.
28.04.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet: Yes/no
Speaking/Non-speaking Order
Lpp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1832 of 2010
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Additional Special Judge,
Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1832 of 2010
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Lpp
C.M.A.No.1832 of 2010
28.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
