Madras High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Naina Mohammed ... Petitioner/ on 10 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.2547 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.2.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2547 of 2013
National Insurance Company Ltd.,
No.751, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2. ... Appellant/Insurance Company
..Vs..
1. Naina Mohammed ... Petitioner/Respondent No.1
2. Sivakumar ... 1st Respondent/Respondent No.2
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the
Judgement and decree dated 11.2.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.1880 of 2008 on the
file of III Small Causes Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Bhaskaran
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.Mura Aurobindo Kumar for
Ms.Ramya Rao
For Respondent No.2 : No appearance
*****
JUDGMENT
Dissatisfied with the award, dated 11.2.2013 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1880 of 2008, Insurance Company is
before this Court against the liability as well as quantum of compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2547 of 2013
2. The case of the claimant is that on 22.6.2006 at about 9.30 a.m.,
while the petitioner was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-05-D 7179
at New Avadi road, junction of Palli Arasan Street, Chennai proceeding from south
to north, a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-05-J-8148 driven by its driver in
a rash and negligent manner from east to west and hit the petitioner's vehicle,
thereby caused accident, resulting in the petitioner sustained grievous injuries.
The rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-05-J-8148 is responsible for
the accident. The first respondent as the owner and the second respondent as the
Insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence,
the appellant has filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- .
3 In the counter statement filed by the Insurance Company it is
specifically stated that the claimant did not possess valid driving licence to drive
the vehicle at the time of accident. Besides, the claimant did not produce the
said vehicle for inspection. Charge sheet was laid under Sec.338 I.P.C. 184 of M.V.
Act, 3 r/w 181, 196 and 179 of M.V. Act and the petitioner has voluntarily pleaded
guilty of the offences charged and sentenced to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-. As such,
the appellant himself contributed negligence to cause accident. Therefore, the
claim petition is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2547 of 2013
4 The Tribunal, based on the oral and documentary evidence Exs.P1
to P.11, has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,05,002/- to the petitioner.
Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has preferred the present
appeal mainly against the liability fixed by the tribunal.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
Company and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/first respondent
and perused the materials available on record.
6. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Insurance Company is that the petitioner did not possess valid driving
licence at the time of accident and the petitioner himself voluntarily pleaded
guilty and paid a fine of Rs.2000/- before Magistrate Court. Further, Tribunal
having observed the evidence of claimant, R.W.1, R.W.2 and Ex.P1, R1 to R4 that
the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner. In such
view of the matter, tort-feaser's claim is not maintainable. Therefore, the award
passed by the tribunal is liable to be set aside.
7. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar and another [Civil
Appeal No.9694 of 2013, dated 24.11.2017] in paragraph 9, has held that in a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2547 of 2013
proceeding under Sec.163-A of the Act, it is not open for the Insurer to raise any
defence of negligence on the part of the victim.
8. The aforesaid judgment is squarely apply to the facts of the case
in hand. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant cannot dispute the
dictum laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, in the light of the
decision cited supra, the ground raised by the appellant/Insurance company is not
sustainable. The appellant has no grievance in sofar as the quantum of
compensation awarded by the tribunal.
9. For the reasons stated in preceding paragraphs, this Court is of the
view that the tribunal has rightly passed the award in favour of the claimant.
Hence, there is no warrant to interfere with the award passed by the tribunal.
10. In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
10.2.2021
Speaking/Non Speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vaan
To
1. The III Small Causes Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Chennai.
2. The National Insurance Company Ltd., No.751, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.
3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai-104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2547 of 2013
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
vaan
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
No.2547 of 2013
8.2.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
