Madras High Court
The New India Assurance Company ... vs Arikrishnan on 28 April, 2021
C.M.A.No.2200 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.M.A.No.2200 of 2011
and
MP.No.1 of 2011
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Cuddalore N.T ... Appellant
Versus
1.Arikrishnan
2.Iyyappan ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, against the decree and judgment dated 05.10.2010 made in
M.C.O.P.No.1244 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Additional Subordinate Judge-1), Cuddalore
For Appellant : Mr.K.Vinoth
for Mrs.Elveera Ravindran
For Respondents : No Appearance
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2200 of 2011
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been laid as against the decree and judgment dated
05.10.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.1244 of 2007 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judge-1), Cuddalore,
thereby awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/-.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to
hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant / insurance company
submitted that the first respondent was the rider of the two wheeler and on
rash and negligent driving of the first respondent, the accident took place,
due to which the claimant sustained injury and the Tribunal awarded
compensation. He further submitted that the vehicle owned by the first
respondent is insured with the second respondent and as such the Tribunal
fixed liability on both the respondents jointly and severally to pay
compensation. The Tribunal failed to see that the first respondent did not
possess valid licence to drive the motorcycle. Ex.P5 was marked by the
claimant and it revealed that the first respondent possessed driving licence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2200 of 2011
only to drive light motor vehicle and not for motorcycle with gear.
Therefore, it is violation of policy and as such he sought for order of pay
and recovery.
4. Heard Mr.K.Vinoth, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant.
5. On perusal of driving licence which was marked as Ex.P5 by
the claimant revealed that the driving licence was issued to the first
respondent to drive light motor vehicle. Therefore, there is a clear violation
of the policy condition and the first respondent / second respondent herein
is held to be liable to pay the entire compensation. Accordingly, the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed as follows:-
(i) The award amount of Rs.1,80,000/- passed by the Tribunal is
hereby confirmed.
(ii) The award amount will carry the interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit.
(iii) The appellant / second respondent is directed to deposit the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2200 of 2011
entire award amount, less the amount, if any, already deposited, along with
accrued interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this Judgment. The appellant / second respondent is at liberty to
recover the above award amount from the second respondent herein.
(iv) On such deposit, the claimant / first respondent herein is
permitted to withdraw the amount awarded by the Tribunal by filing proper
application before the Tribunal.
(v) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.04.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet: Yes/no
Speaking/Non-speaking Order
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2200 of 2011
To
1.The Additional Subordinate Judge-1,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Cuddalore
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2200 of 2011
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
C.M.A.No.2200 of 2011
28.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
