Madras High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rathinasamy on 22 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.470 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.2.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.470 of 2011
M.P.No.1 of 2011
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
D.O.II (Ist Floor), 104-A,
Peramanur main road,
Salem 636 007. ... 5th Respondent/Appellant
..Vs..
1. Rathinasamy
2. Janaki
3. Karuppusamy ... Respondents 1 to 3/Petitioners
4 Sakthivel (Driver)
5 G.Maragatham (Owner)
6 A.S.Sathish (Driver)
7 D.Murugesan (Owner)
8 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
5/1/333, Annapoorna Building,
Ooty Main road, Mettupalayam-641 301
Coimbatore District. ... Respondents 4 to 8/ Respondent-1 to 4 & 6
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the
Judgement and decree dated 9.10.2007 made in M.C.O.P.No.782 of 2004 on the
file of I Additional District Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Mrs.R.Sreevidhya
For Respondent No.1 to 3 : Mr.P.Krishnan
For Respondent No.8 : Mrs.S.R.Sumathy
For Respondent No.4 to 7 : Notice unserved
*****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
C.M.A.No.470 of 2011
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the case is as follows:
On 24.05.2003 when the deceased Dhanapal repairing the vehicle
bearing registration No.TN-10-A 3103 at Periya Seeragapadi yerikarai bus stop at
Sankagiri – Salem road at the left side of the road by lying on the ground under the
said vehicle, a lorry bearing registration No.TDL 7787 driven by the first
respondent in a rash and negligent manner and with over speed in the same place
hit against the vehicle standing in the jack and dragged the said vehicle to a
distance of 50 feet, thereby caused accident, resulting in the deceased Dhanapal
sustained multiple fatal injuries all over the body and he died on the way to Salem
Government hospital. The legal heirs of the deceased have filed a claim petition
before the tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- from the
respondents/Insurance companies and the owner of the vehicles.
2. The respondents 4 to 7 owners and drivers of the vehicle
remained exparte before the tribunal. On the side of the claimants, P.W.1 to 3
were examined and Ex.P1 to 10 were marked. On the side of the respondent, no
witness was examined or any exhibits were marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.470 of 2011
3 Tribunal, based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by
both sides, awarded a sum of Rs.3,60,500/- as compensation to the claimants
along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition
till realization. The tribunal while awarding compensation to the claimants, has
held that appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the
claimants.
4. Challenging the said award, the appellant/Insurance Company has
filed the present appeal both against the liability fastened against the Insurance
Company as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
Company, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants, learned
counsel appearing for the 6th respondent/Insurance Company and perused the
materials available on record.
6. According to the counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
Company, the driver of the insured vehicle at the time of accident, had no valid
driving licence and therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any
compensation to the claimants. Tribunal without appreciating the contention
raised by the appellant in proper perspective, has fixed the liability on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.470 of 2011
appellant/Insurance company. According to the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, there is no material has been placed by the claimants before the
tribunal to establish that the driver of the insured vehicle possessed a valid driving
licence. Therefore, the finding of the tribunal against the Insurance Company is
liable to be set aside. However, there is no dispute raised by the appellant in
respect of the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.
7. On a perusal of the award passed by the tribunal, there is no such
plea raised before the tribunal. The tribunal has discussed negligence aspect on
the part of the driver of the vehicle. Further, there is no evidence placed before
this Court that the appellant has disproved the validity of the driving licence of
the driver of the insured vehicle. Considering at any angle, there is no such issue
raised before the tribunal and also, the appellant has not produced any material to
prove that the aforesaid ground raised before the tribunal. Therefore, the
contention raised by the appellant/Insurance company cannot be sustained and the
same is liable to be rejected.
8 Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.470 of 2011
Speaking/Non Speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vaan
To
1. The I Additional District Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Coimbatore.
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., D.O.II (Ist Floor), 104-A, Peramanur main road,
Salem 636 007.
3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai-104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.470 of 2011
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
vaan
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.470 of 2011
M.P.No.1 of 2011
22.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
