Madras High Court
Iffco-Tokio General Insurance ... vs Mrs.M.Arumugham 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.1128 of 2017
Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited,
Represented by its Branch Manager,
having office at Chandra Gandhi Nagar,
82, Preetham Plaza,
Ground Floor and 1st Floor,
Ponmeni, Madurai Town and District : Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.Mrs.M.Arumugham
2.Mr.Rajakumari
3.Mr.Kannan
4.Mr.Sundaramurthy @ Sundararajamurthy
5.Mr.Kasilingam
6.Mr.Thangaraj
7.Mrs.Krishnammal :R1 to R7/Petitioners
8.Mr.Sikandar Dulkaranai :R8/1st Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under
Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award, dated
26.04.2017 made in MCOP No.153 of 2015 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Sivagangai.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Sakthivel
For R1 to R7 : Mr.N.Tamil Mani
For 8th Respondent : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
JUDGMENT
Challenge made in this appeal is to the award, dated
26.04.2017 made in MCOP No.153 of 2015 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Sivagangai.
2.The short facts of the case is that on 09.12.2014, the
deceased Malichamy went South Thamarakki Village for a festival
and at about 7.45 pm when the deceased walked in front of one
Baskaran house, a Lorry TN-69-a-3357 came in a rash and
negligentmanner and dashed against the decese. In that process,
the deceased sustained grievous injuries all over the body and died
on the spot. The legal heirs of the deceased Malaichamy filed a
claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on the
ground that the driver of the Lorry was responsible for the
accident.
3.The claimants have stated that at the time of accident, the
deceased was 59 years and he was doing Agricultural work and
Cow Broker and he was earring Rs.10,000/- per month.
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 Lorry was
responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.
6,17,500/- 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 that the driver of the offending vehicle was under
the intoxicating mode and thereby violated the policy condition
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 7/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 offending vehicle was under the intoxicate
mode on the date of the accident. The oral evidence of PW2 and
Ex.P1(FIR), Ex.P3(MVI Report), Ex.P4 (Final Report) and Ex.P6
Rough sketch would show that the driver of the offending vehicle
drove it in a drunken mood and caused the accident. The tribunal,
even though accepting the case of the appellant Insurance
Company holding that that the driver of the offending vehicle drove
it in a drunken mood and negligently, failed to order pay and
recovery theory.
10.It is settled law that the driving of the vehicle in a drunken
mode amounts to violation of policy condition. In the instant case,
as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, the Insurance company has established before the
Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle drove the offending
vehicle in a drunken mood. It is settled law that though the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
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.
11.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 six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order, if not already deposited. On such deposit, the claimants
are permitted to withdraw their respective share as per the
apportionment of the tribunal, without filing any formal petition
before the Tribunal. The Appellant Insurance Company is at liberty
to recover the award amount from 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/
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai.
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.1128 of 2017
08.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
