Madras High Court
M/S.United India Insurance ... vs Muthammal on 15 December, 2021
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.503 and 504 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE : 15.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.503 and 504 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD)Nos. 2 and 2 of 2011
C.M.A.(MD)No.503 of 2011
M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited,
Theni
through its Branch Manager. ...Appellant/Respondent No.2
Vs.
1.Muthammal
2.S.Selvi
3.S.Prabbu
4.S.Chellathambi
5.S.Nithiya
6.S.Sathiyanathan
7.S.Mariaselvam ...Respondents 1 to 7/Petitioners
8.Vedamani ...8th Respondent/1st Respondent
PRAYER in C.M.A.(MD)No.503 of 2011 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside or modify the
order of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1984 of 2006, dated 20.08.2010 on the
file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/I Additional District Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.503 and 504 of 2011
C.M.A.(MD)No.504 of 2011
M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited,
Theni
through its Branch Manager. ...Appellant/Respondent No.2
Vs.
1.R.Maalaiammal
2.R.Ramesh
3.R.Suresh
4.P.Maryammal ...Respondents 1 to 4/Petitioners
5.Vedamani ...5th Respondent/1st Respondent
PRAYER in C.M.A.(MD)No.504 of 2011 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside or modify the
order of the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.2040 of 2006, dated 20.08.2010 on the
file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/I Additional District Court,
Madurai.
In C.M.A.(MD)No.503 of 2011
For Appellant :Mr.J.S.Murali
For R1 to R7 :Ms.Vidya
for Mr.T.Selvakumaran
For R8 :No Appearance
In C.M.A.(MD)No.504 of 2011
For Appellant :Mr.J.S.Murali
For R1 to R4 :Ms.Vidya
for Mr.T.Selvakumaran
For R5 :No Appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.503 and 504 of 2011
COMMON JUDGMENT
These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed to set aside the
award and decree made in M.C.O.P.Nos.1984 and 2040 of 2006, dated
20.08.2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/I Additional
District Court, Madurai respectively.
2.It is a case of accident, which took place on 13.03.2003 at about
01.30 hours on Cumbum – Theni main road, Muthuthevanpatti south to
Pillaiar Kovil, while the deceased Rajendran drove his TVS XL Super,
bearing Registration No.TN-60-Y-1018 along with the deceased Selvaraj,
who was travelling as a pillion rider and at that time, the first respondent's
driver drove the Ambassador Car bearing Registration No.TN-60-2426 in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler. Due to the
impact of the accident, the both the deceased died on the spot itself.
3.The claimants have filed claim petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.1984 and
2040 of 2006, dated 20.08.2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal/I Additional District Court, Madurai, seeking compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.503 and 504 of 2011
4.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants three witnesses were
examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and eight documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to
P.8 and on the side of the respondents two witnesses were examined as R.W.1
and R.W.2 and two documents were marked as Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.
5.The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidences and the arguments of the counsel for the claimants and the
respondents and also on appreciating the evidences on record, held that the
accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the fifth respondent herein and directed the appellant and the fifth
respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs.3,55,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/-
respectively as compensation.
6.Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the material
documents available on record.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that
though sufficient evidence was adduced by the respondents to show that the
rider of the two wheeler was not having a valid driving licence on the date of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.503 and 504 of 2011
the accident, the Tribunal fastened the liability both on the
appellant/Insurance Company and fifth respondent. Therefore, he prayed this
Court that 'pay and recovery' may be ordered.
8.On perusal of records, it shows that before the Tribunal, the
appellant/ Insurance Company examined RW1. A letter from the R.T.O.
Office, which was marked as Ex.R1, proved the fact that the rider of the two
wheeler viz.,TVS XL Super TN-60-Y-1018 has no valid driving license on
the date of accident. So the appellant/Insurance Company clearly proved the
case that there was no valid driving license for the rider of the two wheeler
on the date of accident. But the Tribunal has fixed the entire liability on the
appellant/Insurance Company and the fifth respondent. Hence, the Tribunal
ought to have ordered for pay and recovery, since the rider of the vehicle has
no valid driving licence at the time of accident. Sofar as the quantum of
amount awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, it is very reasonable. Hence
this Court has no valid reasons to interfere with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Award passed by the
Tribunal in M.C.O.P.Nos.1984 and 2040 of 2006, dated 20.08.2010 on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.503 and 504 of 2011
file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/I Additional District Court,
Madurai respectively, are hereby modified.
10.The appellant /United India Insurance Company Limited, is directed
to deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.4,00,000/- in
M.C.O.P.No.1984 of 2006 and Rs.3,55,000/- in M.C.O.P.No.2040 of 2006
together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim
petition till the date of deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P.Nos.1984 and 2040 of
2006, dated 20.08.2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/I
Additional District Court, Madurai respectively within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and recover the same from the
owner of the Ambassador Car bearing Registration No.TN-60-2426 on the
same cause of action. On such deposit being made, the claimants are entitled
to withdraw the same after following due process of law.
11. In the result, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are partly allowed.
However, this Court directs in terms of what has been stated in the Judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Baljit Kaur & Ors. Reported in 2004 (2) GLR 1071 = 2004 ACJ 428
(SC) that the insurer shall pay the quantum of compensation fixed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.503 and 504 of 2011
Tribunal, about which there was no dispute raised, to the respondent-
claimants within three months from today. For the purpose of recovering the
same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may
initiate a proceeding before the concerned Executing Court as if the dispute
between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination
before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour
of the insurer. Before release of the amount to the insured, owner of the
vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security
and the offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If
necessity arises, the Executing Court shall take assistance of the concerned
Regional Transport authority. The Executing Court shall pass appropriate
orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the insured, owner
of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default
it shall be open to the Executing Court to direct realization by disposal of the
securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the
owner of the vehicle, the insured. No costs. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
15.12.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.503 and 504 of 2011
S.ANANTHI, J.
vsd
Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
Advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/
I Additional District Court,
Madurai.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Common Judgment made in
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.503 and 504 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD)Nos. 2 and 2 of 2011
15.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
