Madras High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Santhi on 18 February, 2021
CMA.No.1207 of 2016
and C.M.P.No.9136 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
CMA.No.1207 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.9136 of 2016
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,
Having office at 11, Office No. 6-A, People's Park,
3rd floor, Government Arts College,
Coimbatore. ...Appellant
Vs.
1.Santhi
2.Senthilraj
3.Saranaya
4.Sarojini ...Respondents
PRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against decree and the
judgment dated 05.10.2015, made in MCOP.No. 78 of 2006, on the
file of the Motor Accidents Tribunal (Special District Court), Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Mechael Visuvasam
For Respondents : No appearance
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the
appellant/Insurance Company on the point of liability.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.1207 of 2016
and C.M.P.No.9136 of 2016
2.The respondents herein have filed above MCOP.No.78 of
2006 before the Special District Court, Salem (Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal) for claiming compensation for the death of the
husband of the first claimant in the road accident. As per Ex.P1/FIR,
unknown lorry said to have dashed against the deceased while he
was moving in a two wheeler bike, subsequently he succumbed to
injuries in the vital parts of his body.
3.It is a specific case of the Insurance Company that since
the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligence driving
of the injured himself, the Insurance Company is liable to pay only
the personal liability and personal accident cover to the extent of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only).
4.Heard J.Mechael Visuvasam, learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company and perused the materials placed on
record.
5.During the trial, the staff from the Insurance Company
would depose that the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has already
been deposited.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.1207 of 2016
and C.M.P.No.9136 of 2016
6.After going through the cause title in MCOP.No.78/2006,
this Court finds that the petitioners themselves have arrayed as
Respondents 1 to 4 in the said MCOP, but the petitioners cannot be
the respondents at the same time in the same petition. The owner
of the vehicle and the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle
were not impleaded as a party respondents. I find that the
proceedings thereon by the said Court is not in accordance with the
Motor Vehicles Act. Furthermore, if the accident is caused due to
the negligence on the part of the driver, the Insurance Company
cannot be held liable. If at all, they are entitled only Rs.1,00,000/-
and the same was already disposed by the Insurance Company and
hence, I find that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal suffers
from illegality on the face of the record and hence, the same is
unsustainable in law and the same is hereby set aside.
7.Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed
and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MCOP.No.78 of
2006, is hereby set aside and the appellant/ Insurance Company is
directed to withdraw the additional deposited amount of Rs.25,000/-
at the time of admission of the appeal.
18.02.2021
dua
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CMA.No.1207 of 2016
and C.M.P.No.9136 of 2016
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
dua
To
The Motor Accidents Tribunal (Special District Court), Salem.
CMA.No.1207 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.9136 of 2016
18.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
