Madras High Court
The General Manager vs Mumtaj Begam on 19 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.1726 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
CMA No.1726 of 2007
The General Manager,
United India Insurance Company,
No.24, Whites Road,
Chennai-600014 ... Appellant
..vs..
1. Mumtaj Begam
S/o. Abdul Salam
2.Muthukumaran
S/o.Renganathan
3.Abdul Salam
S/o.Sulaiman ... Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
against the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2001 made in
M.C.O.P.No.465 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1726 of 2007
For Appellant : Ms. Shobana
for Mrs.R.Sreevidhya
For Respondents : Notice unserved.
----
JUDGMENT
Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree, dated
27.08.2001, passed by the tribunal awarding compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, the
Insurance Company is before this Court to set aside the judgment and
decree by the tribunal.
2. It is the case of the claimant/1 st respondent herein that on
11.03.1998 at 1.15 p.m at Thiruthuraipoondi to Nagai Road, Opposite to
Murugaiyan Rice Mill, the deceased Sirajudeen was standing in the north
side of the Road. At the time, the driver of the vehicle/2nd respondent
herein bearing Reg.No. TN02 -A-9663 came from east to west in a rash
and negligence manner and dashed against the deceased boy. Due to
which, he sustained severe injury. Inspite of best treatment, he was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1726 of 2007
declared died on the next day i.e on 12.03.1998 at 9 a.m. The mother of
the deceased/1st respondent herein has filed a claim petition for
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the
vehicle.
3. The tribunal after analyzing both oral and documentary
evidences, has fixed the negligence on the rider of the motor cycle
bearing Reg.No. TN02 -A-9663 and being insurer of the said vehicle,
directed the insurance company to pay the total compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of
petition till realization.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
Company has submitted that the award passed by the tribunal is contrary
to law, weightage of evidence and against all the probabilities of the
case. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has
further submitted tribunal has failed to note that the driver Suresh was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1726 of 2007
not duly licensed to drive a two wheeler, as such the appellant/insurance
company cannot be made liable to pay the compensation. Hence prayed
to set aside the award passed by the tribunal only as against the
appellant/insurance company.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Insurance
Company and perused the materials available on record.
6. Earlier this Court ordered notice and private notice to the
respondents on 12.09.2007 and 26.07.2010. Subsequently, when the case
was taken up for hearing, fresh notice was ordered to the 1 st respondent
on 17.09.2020. It is seen from the records notice was served to the 1st
respondent, but none appeared on behalf of the 1st respondent. Despite
service of notice, none appeared for the 1st respondent. This Court by
taking note of the pendency of the appeal from the year 2007, decided to
dispose of the case on merits.
7. It is seen from the award, before the Tribunal, two witnesses
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1726 of 2007
P.W.1 & P.W.2 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P5 were marked on
the side of the claimant/1st respondent herein, whereas R.W.1 was
examined and Ex.R1 to R3 were marked on the side of the 2nd
respondent/appellant herein.
8. The main ground raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant/insurance company is that the river of the two wheeler did not
possess valid driving licence at the time of the accident, hence the
liability fixed on the appellant/insurance company is erroneous.
9. On a perusal of the evidence in the award passed by the tribunal,
it is seen that the said objections of the insurance company was
considered and elaborately discussed by the tribunal. The driving license
was marked as Ex.R3 before the tribunal, which reveals that the rider of
the two wheeler was holding valid driving license for driving Light
Motor Vehicle. Further, the reply received from the Regional Transport
Authority, Tiruvaur also confirms that the driving license issued to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1726 of 2007
rider of the motor cycle/ 2nd respondent herein was valid till 18.11.2009.
Therefore, as per Ex.R3/Policy, on the date of accident i.e.,11.03.1998 ,
the subsisting policy was in existence and the rider of the two wheeler
(M 80) was not disqualified from riding motor cycle. Hence, being the
insurer of the said vehicle, the insurance company is liable to pay the
compensation amount.
10. In view of the clear discussions made by the tribunal and in
the absence of any materials to prove the grounds raised by the
appellant/insurance company, this Court is of th view that the grounds
raised by the appellant are unsustainable and liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this Court confirms the liability fixed by the tribunal on the
insurance company. Insofar as quantum of compensation, there is no
dispute by the appellant/insurance company, hence the compensation
awarded by the tribunal at Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest is confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1726 of 2007
11. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred by the
appellant/insurance company is dismissed and the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal at Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest from the date of
petition till the date of deposit is confirmed. The appellant/insurance
company is directed to deposit the entire award amount along with
interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such
deposit, the 1st respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the award
amount along with interest fixed by the Tribunal, after adjusting the
amount, if any, already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications
before the Tribunal. No costs.
19.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1726 of 2007
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.,
ak
To
1. The Principal District Judge,
(Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal),
Nagapattinam.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
CMA.No.1726 of 2007
19.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
