Madras High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pandithurai on 17 February, 2021
CMA No.530 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 17.02.2021
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
CMA No.530 of 2011 and
M.P.No.1 of 2011
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Coimbatore-2. ... Appellant/3rd respondent
Vs.
1. Pandithurai
2. Minor Sarathkumar, 16 years,
rep. by his guardian, father and next friend
Mr.Pandithuria. ... 1,2 Respondents/ Claimants
3. N. Ganesan
4. The Principal,
M/s St. John Matriculation School,
Press Colony, Coimbatore-19. ... 3,4 Respondents/1,2 respondents
Prayer:
Civil Miscellaneous Petitions filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act against the decree and judgment dated 11.02.2010 passed in
M.C.O.P.No.214 of 2008 by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1 of 8
CMA No.530 of 2011
For Appellant : S. Arunkumar
For Respondents : Mr.G.Vinodhkumar - for R1and R2
ORDER
Aggrieved over the orders passed by the Tribunal, the
Insurance company is before this court to set aside the same.
2. The first and second respondents/ Claimants have filed a
claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-
for the death of one Ramathal, wife of the first claimant and mother of
the second claimant.
3. The brief case of the claimants is as follows:
The deceased was working as Maiden Servant (Aya) in the
4th respondent school (herein). On 21.06.2007 at about 4.30 p.m. she
was engaging her work in the school van bearing registration No.TN29U
5962 to drop the children to their home from the School to
Kuppepalayam and while nearing Kattampatty-Perianaickenpalayam
Road, the driver of the van drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner and took 'U' turn in high speed and applied the break, due to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2 of 8
CMA No.530 of 2011
which the deceased was thrown out from the van and sustained grievous
injuries all over her body and immediately she was admitted to Srinivasa
Hospital Veerapandi Privu and then taken to Coimbatore Medical
College, where, she died on 22.06.2007 at 6.30 p.m. According to the
claimants, the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van was the
cause of accident and since the owner of the van insured his vehicle with
the insurance company, all them are liable to pay compensation to them.
4. The driver and the owner of the Bus remained exparte
and the insurance company contested the claim petition by filing counter
affidavit.
5. Before Tribunal, the first claimnat and one another
witness were examined as PW1 and PW2 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7.
On the side of the insurance company, two witnesses were examined as
RW1 and RW2 and marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.
6. After analysing the evidence on record, the Tribunal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3 of 8
CMA No.530 of 2011
totally awarded a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- and directed the insurance
company to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimants and directed the
driver and the School to pay the remaining amounts. Aggrieved over the
orders passed by the Tribunal, the insurance company is before this court
by filing the present appeal.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ insurance
company submitted that though the vehicle was used for commercial
purpose, which is contrary to the terms of the contract, the Tribunal has
erred in holding that the appellant is liable to pay compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/-. He further submitted that originally, the said vehicle was
insured in the name of S.Chelladurai, subsequently, the ownership of the
vehicle was transferred in the name of the fourth respondent herein,
however, it was not informed to the insurance company. According to
him, as per the agreement, there is no contract between the insurance
company and the fourth respondent and on that ground alone, the claim
petition against the insurance company is not maintainable. It is his
contention that unless the respondents proved that there exist an
enforceable contract against the insurance company, the claim made by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4 of 8
CMA No.530 of 2011
the claimants is not maintainable and hence the Award passed by the
Tribunal has to be set aside, as against this appellant/insurance company.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and I have
perused the materials on record.
9. Now the point for consideration is whether the insurance
company is liable pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claimants, as
awarded by the Tribunal.
10. Point.
According to the appellant, the vehicle was not insured in
the name of the fourth respondent and it was insured only in the name of
Mr.S.Chelladurai. It is the contention of the appellant that the transfer of
ownership of the vehicle was not intimated to them and hence, there is no
contract between the appellant and the fourth respondent to pay
compensation.
11. At this juncture , it is relevant to extract Section 157 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5 of 8
CMA No.530 of 2011
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which read thus.
157. Transfer of certificate of insurance (1) Where a person in
whose favour the Certificate of Insurance has been issued in
accordance with the provision of this Chapter transfers to another
person the ownership of the Motor Vehicle in respect of which
such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance
relating thereto, the certificate of insurance and the policy
described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been
transferred in favour of the person to whom the Motor Vehicle is
transferred with effect from the date of its transfer.
12. As per the above said provision, the insurance company
cannot absolve from its liability to pay compensation to the insured.
Further, after discussing elaborately, the Tribunal had awarded a
compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- and fixed the liability on the appellant/
insurance company only to pay Rs.1,00,000/- and the remaining on the
third and fourth respondent herein. Therefore, considering at any angle,
this court is of the view that there is no ground to interfere with the
award passed by the Tribunal and the appeal fails.
13. In the result,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
6 of 8
CMA No.530 of 2011
(i) The civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs.
The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(ii) The appellant/ insurance company is directed to deposit a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this court, less the amount already deposited by them.
(iii) On such deposit being made by the insurance company,
the claimants are at liberty to withdraw the same, after following due
process of law.
17.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non Speaking order
mst
To
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Coimbatore-2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7 of 8
CMA No.530 of 2011
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
mst
CMA No.530 of 2011 and
M.P.No.1 of 2011
17.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
8 of 8
