Madras High Court
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Perumayee on 3 February, 2021
1
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 03.02.2021
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice D.KRISHNA KUMAR
C.M.A. No.2793 of 2010
and
M.P.No.1 of 2010
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
146-N, Kumar Complex,
Tiruchengode,
Namakkal District. ... Appellant
..Vs..
1.Perumayee
2.P.Mani ... Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree passed
by the learned Additional District Judge, FTC-I, (MACT), Salem in
M.C.O.P.No.1327 of 2004 dated 04.08.2011.
For Appellant : Mr.M.J.Vijayaraghavan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the award passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, FTC-I, Salem in M.C.O.P.No.1327 of 2004
dated 04.08.2011, the present appeal has been preferred by the
appellant Insurance Company.
2. Heard Mr.M.J.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant. In respect of notice to the second
respondent, it is seen from the endorsements, it was returned as
“no such addressee” on 20.04.2011, 22.03.2013, 04.04.2013 and
moreover, the last registered post was also returned with
acknowledgment 'not known' on 31.01.2014 and thereafter, no
steps have been taken to serve on the second respondent. In this
appeal, the ground has been raised as against the second
respondent insofar as the liability is concerned however, he was set
ex-parte before the Tribunal but in the appeal, no notice has been
served on the second respondent inspite of sufficient opportunities
given and therefore, this Court has no other option except to
dismiss the appeal as against the second respondent herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3. The brief facts of the case is as follows:-
a) On 28.05.2004 at about 2.30 hrs., the claimant was
travelling in the Ttipper lorry bearing registration No.TN-27-V-4779
while it was nearing Ariyannor EB office, the Tipper lorry dashed
against a lorry standing on the left side of the road. The accident
had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the Tipper lorry which was insured with the appellant herein.
Due to which, the claimant had suffered grievous injuries. Hence
she had filed a claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.3 lakhs for the
injuries sustained by her in the accident.
b) Before the Tribunal, witnesses P.W.1 & P.W.2 were
examined and exhibits P1 to P7 were marked as documents on the
side of the claimant and R.W.1 was examined and exhibits R1 and
R2 were marked on the side of the respondent/Insurance company.
After analyzing the oral and documentary evidences, the Tribunal
came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tipper lorry and
directed the respondents therein jointly and severally to pay the
compensation of Rs.97,842/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
c) The break-up details of the award passed by the Tribunal
are as follows:-
S.No. Heads Amount (Rs.)
1 Permanent disability 70,000
2 Medical bill 19,542
4 Wounds 8000
Total 97,842
4. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant/Insurance
Company has preferred the present appeal challenging the liability
fastened on them to pay the compensation.
5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant that the
claimant/first respondent injured claims compensation for the
grievous injuries sustained by her in the road accident that took
place on 28.06.2004 while travelling in the Tipper lorry bearing
registration No.TN-27-V-4779 belonging to the second respondent
herein near Ariyanoor EB office, on account of the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the second respondent's vehicle,
the aforesaid accident had happened. Therefore, the claimant has
filed the claim petition as against the appellant as well as the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
second respondent herein. The learned counsel for the appellant in
the counter statement filed before the Tribunal has denied their
liability specifying that there is violation of the terms and conditions
of the policy. The first respondent herein/claimant is an
unauthorized passenger and therefore, the policy has not been
covered for her which reveals that the owner of the vehicle has
violated the terms and conditions of the policy. But the Tribunal
without considering the said angle has fasten the liability as against
the appellant/Insurance Company. Hence, the present appeal has
been filed before this Court.
6. Considering the contentions of the appellant/Insurance
Company, the claimant is an unauthorised passenger travelled in
the Tipper lorry and therefore, there is violation on the terms and
conditions of the policy and even though the appellant is not fasten
for the liability but in view of the appeal dismissed as against the
second respondent, this Court opines that no relief can be granted
in the appeal but liberty is granted to the appellant/Insurance
Company to proceed as against the second respondent/owner of the
vehicle.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7. In view of the aforesaid reasonings, the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is dismissed. However, this Court accepts the contentions of
the Insurance Company in regard to violation of policy conditions by
the owner of the vehicle/the second respondent herein and
therefore, grants liberty to the appellant to proceed as against the
second respondent to recover the said compensation amount in
accordance with law.
8. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There
shall be no orders as to costs.
03.02.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
DP
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
To
1.The Additional District Court (FTC-I),
(The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal)
Salem.
2.The Record Keeper,
V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
D.KRISHNA KUMAR.J,
DP
C.M.A. No.2793 of 2010
and
M.P.No.1 of 2010
03.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
