Madras High Court
M/S United India Insurance ... vs M/S National Transport Company on 16 February, 2021
C.M.A(MD)No.678 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED 16.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
C.M.A(MD)No.678 of 2010
and
M.P(MD)No.2 of 2010
M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
rep. by its Divisional Manager,
No.52, South Masi Street,
Madurai – 625 001.
.. Appellant
vs.
1.M/s National Transport Company
No.137 – 141/66-67, East Veli Street,
Madurai.
2.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Avaniapuram,
rep. by its Assistant Engineer,
Avaniapuram,
Madurai.
...Respondents
1/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.678 of 2010
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 to set aside or modify the order of the Tribunal in
MCOP No.1493 of 2004 dated 19.03.2009 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge
(Fast Track Court No.III), Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.A.S.Mathialagan
For Respondents : Mr.J.Lawrance (for R1)
Mr.R.Murali (for R2)
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company
challenging the Judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track
Court No.III), Madurai, in MCOP No.1493 of 2004 dated 19.03.2009.
2.The claim petition came to be filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board seeking compensation of Rs.30,000/- for the damage caused to the
transformer owned by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. According to
the claimant, on 22.06.2003, at about 10.15 a.m, a lorry bearing
registration No.TN-59-B-3469 came in a rash and negligent manner and
rammed the transformer and caused damage to the tune of Rs.30,000/-.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.678 of 2010
3.The claim petition was resisted by the appellant contending that
the damage was not caused by the lorry and the driver of the lorry did not
possess valid driving license, hence, the insurance company is not liable
to pay compensation and that the amount claimed is excessive.
4.The parties had adduced oral and documentary evidence during
the trial. The Tribunal based on ExP.8, report, issued by the Junior
Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, quantified the damages at Rs.
22,000/-. The defence of the appellant that for the extent of the damage
caused to the property of the third party, their maximum liability is Rs.
6,000/-, was rejected by the Tribunal. Hence, this appeal.
5.Heard the parties and perused the materials available on records.
6.It is evident from the records that the Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board approached the Tribunal against the owner and insurer of the
offending vehicle claiming compensation for the damages caused to the
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.678 of 2010
transformer. The Tribunal found that the case was registered against the
driver of the lorry as per Ex.P.1 and it was registered without any delay.
Furthermore, no contra-evidence was adduced by the respondents,
therefore, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred due to the
negligence of the driver of the lorry. The finding on negligence is not
seriously disputed by the appellant herein.
7.It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant
that as per Section 147(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, their liability is
limited to the extent of Rs.6,000/-, but the Tribunal, without appreciating
the same in proper perspective, passed entire liability on the insurance
company.
8.The learned counsel for the respondents made submissions in
support of the conclusion reached by the Tribunal.
9.It is not in dispute that the appellant is the insurer of the
offending vehicle and the insurance policy was in force on the date of
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.678 of 2010
incident. Section 147(2)(b) of the Act says in clear terms that in respect
of the damage to any property of a third party, a limit of liability is only
upto Rs.6,000/-, but the Tribunal rejected the objection of the appellant
on the ground that there was no evidence on record that the owner of the
vehicle was unwilling or refusing to pay the special premium for the
damage of the third party's property. It is further observed that in the
absence of any evidence on the part of the insurance company that the
owner declined to pay the special premium in spite of the appellant
insurance company is demanding the same, the appellant is liable to pay
compensation. The observation made by the Tribunal cannot be
countenanced for the reason that when the Act itself limits the liability of
the Insurance Company to the extent specified under Section 145(2)(b)
of the Act, unless additional premium or extra premium is paid, liability
cannot be fastened on the insurance company.
10.For the above said reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
allowed. The appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay a sum of Rs.
6,000/-. It is represented by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.678 of 2010
entire amount has already been deposited. Hence, the excess amount
shall be refunded to the appellant. No costs.
16.02.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
skn
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
(Fast Track Court No.III), Madurai.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD)No.678 of 2010
K.KALYANASUNDARAM.,J
skn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)No.678 of 2010
16.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
