Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Mrs.Manimegalai on 8 February, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
C.M.A(MD)No.745 of 2017
The Branch Manager,
M/s.Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
No.10/4/4, 2nd Floor,
Thaha Plaza,
South Bypass Road,
Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli. : Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.Mrs.Manimegalai
2.Mr.Subburaj
3.Ms.Gokiladevi
4.Minor Sankarkumar : R1 to R4/Petitioners
(The Minor petitioner is represented
through his mother, guardian and
next friend the first respondent herein)
5.Mrs.G.Deivindra Gani : R5/1st Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under
Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award, dated
29.06.2016 made in MCOP No.120 of 2013 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Court), Aruppukottai.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Sakthivel
For R1 to R4 : Mr.S.J.Chakkaravarthy
For 5th Respondent : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
JUDGMENT
Challenge made in this appeal is to the award passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Aruppukkottai, in
MCOP No.120 of 2013, dated 29.06.2016.
2.The short facts of the case is that on 16.03.2010 at about
6.30 pm, when the deceased Murugesan was riding his motor cycle
TVS MAX-100 TN-69-Y-9477 on Pandalkudi-Velauthapuram Road
near Pandalkudi Bypass road, the Tipper Lorry TN-69-E-4525 came
in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the motor cycle. In
that process, the deceased sustained grievous injuries all over the
body and died on the spot. The legal heirs of the deceased
Murugesan filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.
20,00,000/- on the ground that the driver of the Tipper Lorry was
responsible for the accident.
3.The claimants have stated that at the time of accident, the
deceased was 43 years and he was doing Agricultural work and
Contractor in the Pudur Municipal Union and he was earring Rs.
30,000/- per month. A criminal case in Crime No.52 of 2010 was
registered against the driver of the Tipper Lorry by Pandalkudi
Police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4.The claim was opposed by the appellant Insurance
Company disputing the manner of accident and their liability to pay
compensation.
5.The Tribunal, upon consideration of oral and documentary
evidence, came to the conclusion that the driver of the Tipper Lorry
was responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.
15,12,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. Challenging the award of the
tribunal, the Insurance Company is before this court as appellant.
6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
7.The dispute is with regard to liability. The learned counsel
appearing for the appellant Insurance Company argued that the
tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant from the liability
on the ground of contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased and the terms and conditions of the insurance policy of
the appellant is vitiated and the driver of the tipper lorry was not
having driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident
and the owner of the vehicle has violated the terms and conditions
of the insurance policy and prays that the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal has to be allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
8.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents
1 to 4/claimant submitted that the award is reasonable, which does
not warrant any interference of this court.
9.The specific case of the appellant Insurance Company is
that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence on
the date of the accident. The oral evidence of RW2 and Ex.X8
would show that the driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid
driving licence with badge endorsement. The tribunal, without
accepting the case of the appellant Insurance Company held that
the driver was having valid driving licence on the date of the
accident, but there was no badge endorsement.
10.It is settled law that the transport vehicle should contain
badge endorsement. On perusal of Ex.X8, it reveals that there was
no badge endorsement to drive the vehicle. Hence, without badge
endorsement, the driver should not drive the lorry and it is amounts
to violation of policy condition.
11.In the instant case, as rightly contended by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant, the Insurance company has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
established before the Tribunal that the driver of the offending
vehicle was not having valid driving licence. It is settled law that
though the Insurance Company established violation of the policy
condition and in respect of the claim made by the third parties, the
Insurance company has to first satisfy the award and recover the
same from the owner the vehicle.
12.In view of that, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the entire award amount together with accrued interest and
costs,within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order, if not already deposited. On such deposit, 1 st
respondent/the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire
amount without filing any formal petition before the Tribunal. The
Appellant Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the award
amount from the insured as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Nanjappan's case [(2004)13 SCC 224]. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
08.02.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/
Sub Court, Aruppukottai.
2.The Record Keeper,
V.R Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.KRISHNAVALLI.J.,
er
C.M.A(MD)No.745 of 2017
08.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
