Madras High Court
The Manager vs Senthilkumar on 10 February, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
C.M.A(MD)No.2018 of 2013
and
MP(MD)No.3 of 2013
The Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Post Box No.52, Fort Road,
Kannur District, Kerala. : Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.Senthilkumar
2.Vasanthi : R1 and R2/Petitioners
3.C.Noufal : 3rd Respondent/R1
4.V.Loganathan : 4th Respondent/R3
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under
Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award, dated
23.08.2010 made in MCOP No.270 of 2007 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (District Court), Karur.
For Appellant : Mr.Santhosh Kumar
for Mr.M.Vedasingh
For R1 and R2 : Mr.K.Suresh Kumar
For 3rd Respondent : No appearance
For 4th Respondent : Dismissed, vide order,
dated 29.01.2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
JUDGMENT
Challenge made in this appeal is to the award, dated
23.08.2010 made in MCOP No.270 of 2007 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (District Court), Karur.
2.The short facts of the case is that on 01.03.2007 at about
8.45 pm, when the deceased Kannammal was standing on the road
near Muthusolipalayam Bus stop on the Karur to Coimbatore main
road, the lorry KL-13-C-4529 came in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed against the deceased Kannammal. In the accident, she
sustained head injuries ad fracture all over the body and she died
on the spot. A claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of the
deceased 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 40 years and she was doing Tailoring work and she
was earring Rs.6,000/- per month. A criminal case in Crime No.53
of 2007 was registered against the driver of the Lorry by Paramathi
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 Lorry was
responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.
5,34,000/- 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 that the driver of the lorry was not having valid
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 and 2/claimants 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 RW1 and RW2 and
Ex.R2 would show that the driver of the offending vehicle was not
possessing valid driving licence, at the time of accident. The
tribunal, without accepting the case of the appellant Insurance
Company, held that the appellant Insurance Company is liable to
pay the compensation to the claimants.
10.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 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 of the vehicle.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
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 eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order, if not already deposited. On such deposit, the
respondents 1 and 2/claimants are 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.
10.02.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
er
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/
District Court, Karur.
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.2018 of 2013
10.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
