Madras High Court
Judgment Reserved On Judgment ... vs Minor Sanmathi on 24 February, 2021
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.10601, 10603 & 10614 of 2019
Judgment reserved on Judgment pronounced on
29.01.2021 24.02.2021
Royal Sundaram Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Nungambakkam, Chennai, having D.O. At 8-H-1,
Mangalam Buildings, Omalur Main Road,
Salem 7. .. Appellant in
all the appeals
Vs.
1.Minor Sanmathi
(rep. By next friend/guardian/mother,
Brundadevi)
2.T.V.Sivanandhan ...Respondents
in C.M.A.No.2339 of 2019
1.A.Brundadevi
2.T.V.Sivanandhan ... Respondents in
C.M.A.No.2342 of 2019
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
1.A.Brundadevi
2.Minor Sanmathi
(rep. By next friend/guardian/mother
Brundadevi)
3.P.Rangasamy
4.R.Dhanam
5.T.V.Sivanandhan ... Respondents in
C.M.A.No.2344 of 2019
Common Prayer: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under
Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the common award
dated 17.02.2017, made in M.C.O.P. Nos.511, 510 & 509 of 2011, on the
file of the II Additional District Court, (Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal), Salem.
(In C.M.A.No.2339/2019)
For Appellant : Mr.K.Vinod
For Respondents : Mr.D.Saravanan (For R1)
Mr.D.S.Ramesh (For R2)
(In C.M.A.No.2342/2019)
For Appellant : Mr.K.Vinod
For Respondents : No appearance (For R1)
Mr.D.S.Ramesh (For R2)
(In C.M.A.No.2344/2019)
For Appellant : Mr.K.Vinod
For Respondents : No appearance (For R1 to R4)
Mr.D.S.Ramesh (For R5)
2/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT
The matter is heard through "Video Conferencing".
These appeals have been filed to set aside the common award
dated 17.02.2017, made in M.C.O.P. Nos.511, 510 & 509 of 2011, on the
file of the II Additional District Court, (Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal), Salem.
2.All the appeals arise out of the same accident and common
award. Hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
3.The appellant in all the appeals is the 2nd respondent-Insurance
Company in M.C.O.P. Nos.511, 510 & 509 of 2011, on the file of the II
Additional District Court, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Salem. The
1st respondent in C.M.A.Nos.2339 and 2342 of 2019 filed
M.C.O.P.Nos.511 & 510 of 2011, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and
Rs.5,00,000/- respectively as compensation for the injuries sustained by
them in the accident that took place on 15.10.2010. The respondents 1 to
3/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
4 in C.M.A.No.2344 of 2019 filed M.C.O.P.No.509 of 2011, claiming a
sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the death of one Arun, who
died in the accident that took place on 15.10.2010.
4.The parties are referred to as per their rank in M.C.O.P.No.509 of
2011, for the sake of convenience.
5.According to the claimants, on the date of accident, when the
deceased Arun was riding Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-65-B-
4700 along with his wife and daughter who are the claimants 1 and 2 as
pillion riders near Devangar Colony, Mettupatti Thathanur, in front of
M.R.Petrol Bunk, the driver of a Scorpio Car bearing Registration
No.TN-23-AC-3099 belonging to the 1st respondent, drove the same in a
rash and negligent manner and hit against the Motorcycle driven by the
deceased and caused the accident. In the accident, the deceased sustained
fatal injuries. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by
driver of the Scorpio Car belonging to the 1st respondent and hence, filed
4/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
M.C.O.P.No.509 of 2011 against the respondents who are the owner and
insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. In the same accident, the
claimants 1 and 2 also sustained severe injuries and hence, they
separately filed claim petition in M.C.O.P.Nos.510 and 511 of 2011
respectively against the respondents as owner and insurer of the
offending vehicle respectively.
6.The 1st respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal.
7.The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed separate counter
statements in all the claim petitions and denied all the averments made in
the claim petitions. The claimants have stated that the said Scorpio Car
was insured with the 2nd respondent under cover note No.0981061 for the
period from 09.10.2010 to 08.10.2011, whereas the cover note book
bearing No.LUB 0060607 containing the said cover note No.0981061
was lost and a complaint was given to that effect before the Vellore North
Crime Police Station on 22.10.2009 itself, for which CSR No.490/2009
5/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
was also issued. The Police after investigation, issued a certificate on
16.09.2011, stating that all efforts taken to trace the cover note book
went in vain. Therefore, it is clear that the said cover note was lost almost
one year before the alleged accident that took place on 15.10.2010. The
alleged cover Note No.0981061 was not issued by the 2nd respondent to
the Scorpio Car bearing Registration No.TN-23-AC-3099 for the period
from 09.10.2010 to 08.10.2011 and the cover note mentioned in the
petitions is not a genuine document. The 2nd respondent has not received
any premium for the Scorpio Car and no policy was issued by the 2nd
respondent. In any event, the accident occurred when the deceased rode
the Motorcycle violating traffic rules by suddenly turning to his right to
reach the petrol bunk and dashed against the Scorpio Car. Hence, the
accident occurred only due to rash and negligent riding of Motorcycle by
the deceased. Therefore, this respondent is not liable to pay any
compensation and prayed for dismissal of all the claim petitions as
against the 2nd respondent.
6/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
8.Before the Tribunal, the 3rd claimant examined himself as P.W.1,
1st claimant was examined as P.W.2, one Seenivasan was examined as
P.W.3, Sub-Inspector of Police, Karipatty Police Station, was examined
as P.W.4, one Puthuvainathan was examined as P.W.5 and 26 documents
were marked as Exs.P1 to P26. The 2nd respondent examined 1st
respondent as R.W.1 and one Subramanian as R.W.2 and marked 3
documents as Exs.R1 to R3. Three documents were marked as Exs.X1 to
X3.
9.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving by driver of the Scorpio Car belonging to the 1st respondent and
directed the respondents to jointly and severally pay a sum of
Rs.1,88,000/-, Rs.2,07,500/- and Rs.10,64,000/- as compensation to the
claimant(s) in all the claim petitions respectively.
7/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
10.To set aside the said common award dated 17.02.2017, made in
M.C.O.P. Nos.511, 510 & 509 of 2011, the 2nd respondent-Insurance
Company has come out with the present appeals.
11.The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance
Company contended that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle
viz., Scorpio Car was not insured with the 2nd respondent. The alleged
cover note No.0981061 forming part of a cover note book bearing
No.LUB 0060607 relied on by claimants was lost on 22.10.2009 and the
2nd respondent lodged complaint on the same day. The Police issued CSR
receipt No.490/2009. The Police after investigation, issued certificate on
16.09.2011 stating that the lost cover note book was “not traceable”.
P.W.4 – Sub-Inspector of Police deposed that complaint was lodged by
the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company and certificate was issued. The
Tribunal erroneously rejected the evidence of P.W.4 without giving any
reason. The 1st respondent, owner of the vehicle remained exparte before
the Tribunal and he did not file any counter statement, denying the
8/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
averments in the counter filed by the 2nd respondent. In the above
circumstances, the Tribunal erred in accepting the evidence of R.W.1,
owner of Scorpio Car that he produced original insurance policy,
premium receipt and the cover note to the Police authorities, when P.W.4,
Natraj, Sub-Inspector of Police had categorically stated that such
documents are not available in the C.D. file marked as Ex.X1. The
Tribunal failed to consider the fact that Motor Vehicle Inspector's report
produced through P.W.5 for both the vehicles viz., Scorpio Car as well as
the Motorcycle driven by the deceased are not genuine. The Motor
Vehicle Inspector's report for the Motorcycle was computer generated
and that for the Scorpio Car was hand written. The Tribunal has
erroneously drawn adverse inference on the 2nd respondent, as the 2nd
respondent failed to take action against the officers who issued cover
note. The Tribunal failed to see that the 1st respondent, for first time as
R.W.1, has stated that he only handed over the policy and cover note to
the Police without any evidence, that he has paid premium and produced
policy, followed by the cover note. The Tribunal ought to have accepted
9/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
the evidence of R.W.2 and dismissed all the claim petitions as 2nd
respondent-Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.
12.The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance
Company relied on the following judgments in support of their case:
(i) 2018 2 TNMAC 215 [Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,Vs.
R.Maheswari and others]:
“9. It is evident from the materials placed on
record especially the Cover Note bearing S. Nos.
402261 to 202270 (Ex.R-1) which includes S.No.
402264 that the same had been issued in respect of the
vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-04-K-0483 in
favour of Saveetha Engineering College, Saveetha
Nagar, Thandalam, Sriperumbudur which was neither
in the name of the Fourth Respondent nor in respect of
the vehicle bearing Registration No. PY-01-J-2264 that
was involved in the accident in which the said
Ravichandran had died and for which the First to
Third Respondents were claiming compensation as his
legal heirs. The only basis on which the First to Third
Respondents had sought to fasten the liability on the
Appellant was on the basis of the photocopy of the
Cover Note bearing S.No. 402264 (Ex.P-3) obtained
from the police, who had investigated that accident,
but conspicuously the First to Third Respondents had
not taken any efforts for examination of the police in
that regard or to place evidence to the effect that the
10/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
Appellant had received premium for insuring the
vehicle belonging to the Fourth Respondent that was
involved in the accident.
10. Further, the Claims Tribunal ought to have
drawn the necessary inference against the Fourth
Respondent for failure to reply to the notices dated
19.10.2003 and 29.10.2003 (Ex.P-3 to P-5) and
produce the original copy of the Cover Note if she
really had custody of the same. In any event, if the
Fourth Respondent was interested to claim indemnity
from the Appellant, it was incumbent upon her to have
appeared before the Claims Tribunal and produced the
original of the Cover Note said to have been issued by
the Appellant and also lead evidence for having paid
the premium for the same.
11. Be that as it may, the Claims Tribunal could
not have disbelieved the contention of the Appellant
that it had not issued the Cover Note bearing S.No.
402264 for the vehicle bearing Registration No. PY-
01-J-2264 in the name of the Fourth Respondent
merely for the reason that the Appellant had not
initiated criminal prosecution against the Fourth
Respondent. It has to be pointed out here that it was
the responsibility of the investigating officer of the
police to have compared the photocopy of the Cover
Note with its original before handing over the copy to
the First to Third Respondents and when there is lack
of evidence in this regard, the Appellant ought not to
have been fastened with liability. On the other hand, it
is actually the duty of the police, after thorough
investigation, to have prosecuted the Fourth
11/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
Respondent for not having insured the vehicle and for
having produced false evidence.”
(ii)2012 (1) TNMAC 377 (SC) [S.M.Sharmila Vs. National
Insurance Co. Ltd., and others]:
“13. Whether the vehicle in question was insured
at the time of accident i.e. on 3rd April, 1998 is a
question of fact. After appreciating the evidence, the
High Court came to the conclusion that the vehicle in
question was not insured on 3rd April, 1998 and the
vehicle in question had been insured for a period
commencing from 3rd March, 1997 to 2nd March,
1998. The High Court has recorded sound reasons for
coming to the said conclusion after carefully
appreciating the evidence adduced before the
Commissioner. Postage book of the Insurance
Company shows that the insurance policy was
dispatched on 25th March, 1997. This clearly denotes
that the policy was taken prior to 25th March, 1997
and, therefore, the High Court rightly believed the
version of the Insurance Company. This fact rules out
the possibility of the vehicle being insured on 3rd
April, 1998 as submitted on behalf of the respondent
workmen and the appellant. Moreover, the cover note
relied upon by the respondent workmen was not found
to be genuine by the High Court. We are, therefore, in
agreement with the view expressed by the High Court.”
12/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
(iii)2016 (2) TNMAC 433 (Delhi) [New India Assurance
Company and others Vs. R.K.Arora and others]:
“14. The grievance of the insurance company is
that it has been held liable even though it had proved,
to the satisfaction of the tribunal, that the insurance
cover note submitted with the claim petition by the
claimant was a forged and fabricated document. The
submission of the claimant, on the other hand, is that
he had received the copy of the cover note in question
from the investigating police as part of the documents
relating to the chargesheet submitted on conclusion of
the corresponding criminal case registered and
investigated by the said agency and, therefore, he
cannot be held answerable and that against the
backdrop the tribunal has taken an appropriate view.
15. On close scrutiny, this court finds that the
approach of the tribunal was wholly erroneous. By
irrefutable evidence presented during inquiry, it had
been proved that the cover note (Ex.RW3/B) was a
forged and fabricated document. It was shown on the
basis of cogent evidence led that the insurance policy
to which the said cover note purports to relate had
actually been issued in the name of a third person in
respect of a different vehicle. The responsibility to
prove that the cover note of insurance is genuine and
valid, obtained against premium duly paid, was that of
the owner of the vehicle. The said party/respondent
clearly avoided joining the issue, or the inquiry before
the tribunal, and instead opted to suffer the
proceedings ex-parte. It is pertinent to note that the
13/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
said party, inspite of service even in the proceedings
on the appeal before this court, has chosen not to
appear. The same is the position of the driver in the
appeal before this court.
.......................
18. It does appear that the disciplinary action
against Mr. P.S. Bisht, Assistant of the insurance
company under whose purported signatures the cover
note in question appears to have come into existence
was rather slow. During the inquiry before the
tribunal, the insurance company proved some material
indicating that the said employee had been proceeded
against under disciplinary rules. Till the time the
proceedings before the tribunal were concluded, the
disciplinary inquiry was inchoate. Pursuant to the
directions of this court, however, the insurance
company has brought on record document dated
13.10.2006 indicating that the disciplinary action
stood concluded in due course and Mr. P.S. Bisht
having been found guilty of misconduct, penalty of
removal from service was imposed against him.”
(iv)2007 (2) TNMAC 188 [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Thiruvarur vs. Karthikesan and others] :
“3. As regards the insurance coverage, the
award of the Tribunal is silent. The Tribunal has
wrongly observed under Point No.2 that the appellant
is the insurer of the vehicle of the second respondent.
But it has not discussed about the features with regard
to the insurance policy in its award. When it is
definitely denied by the appellant insurance company
that there was no insurance polity, it is incumbent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
upon the claimant to prove that the insurance policy
was in force. In this case, those details are miserably
absent. That being the case, it is in charitable to fasten
the liability on the appellant insurance company.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant cited an
unreported decision delivered by a Division Bench of
this Court in C.M.A.No.1389 of 1993 dated
28.02.1994, where Their Lordships have held that
when the claimant has failed to establish that the
insurance policy was in force at the time of accident,
no liability could be fixed upon the insurance company
and the owner of the vehicle should be held liable.
Considering the circumstances of this case, it is to be
held that the compensation as fixed by the Tribunal has
to be paid by the owner of the tractor viz., the second
respondent herein.”
13.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-
Insurance Company as well as the claimants and perused the materials
available on record.
14.From the materials on record, it is seen that the claimants have
filed claim petitions, claiming compensation against the respondents 1
and 2 who are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. In support
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
of their case, the claimants examined themselves as P.W.1 to P.W.3,
examined Sub-Inspector of Police as P.W.4, one Puthuvainathan as P.W.5
and marked Exs.P1 to P26. According to the claimants, Ex.P9 is a cover
note issued by the 2nd respondent for the offending vehicle for the period
from 09.10.2010 till 08.10.2011. According to the 2nd respondent-
Insurance Company, the offending vehicle was not insured with them at
the time of accident and cover note book No.LUB 0060607 containing
cover note No.0981061 was lost on 22.10.2009, for which complaint was
given to the Police on the same day itself and Police had issued CSR
No.490 of 2009. Subsequently, the Police after investigation, issued
Ex.R3 – certificate stating that the cover note book is not-traceable. To
substantiate this, the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company examined owner
of the vehicle/1st respondent as R.W.1 and examined one Subramanian as
R.W.2.
15.From the materials on record, it is seen that the 1st respondent as
R.W.1, has deposed that he had handed over the cover note receipt for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
premium policy to the Police. In view of the same, he was treated as
hostile witness and was cross examined by counsel for the 2nd
respondent. The Tribunal verifying Ex.P9 – cover note, found that it was
signed by one Amutha, authorised signatory, an Official of the 2nd
respondent and one D.Yogesh, Agent/service provider.
16.From the materials on record, it is seen that the 2nd respondent
has not examined the said Amutha and D.Yogesh. It is not the case of the
2nd respondent that signature found in the cover note is not the signature
of their official and Amutha is not their employee or D.Yogesh is not
their authorised agent. The claim petitions were filed in February, 2011,
stating that offending vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent.
During trial, the claimants filed cover note. The owner of the vehicle, 1st
respondent, as R.W.1, has deposed that he handed over the cover note,
premium receipt and original insurance policy to the Police. Inspite of
claim of claimants based on cover note and evidence of 1st respondent,
the 2nd respondent has not given any complaint to the Police against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
claimants as well as against the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent ought
to have brought to the notice of the Police about the cover note produced
by the claimants before the Tribunal and ought to have taken steps for
investigation by the Police with regard to genuineness of cover note. The
2nd respondent has not produced copy of the complaint given to the
Police and did not examine the person who gave complaint to the Police.
There is nothing on record to show that any action was taken against the
said Amutha or D.Yogesh, agent/service provider of the 2nd respondent.
17.The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent referring
to the evidence of P.W.4, R.W.1 and R.W.2, has contended that R.W.1 has
deposed that he had handed over the original policy, premium receipt and
cover note to the Police, but P.W.4, Sub-Inspector of Police has deposed
that policy is not available in their file. P.W.4 also deposed that no
complaint was given to him. From the materials on record, it is seen that
the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company came to know about the claim of
the claimants that vehicle belonging to the 1st respondent was insured
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
with them and relied on Ex.P9. The 2nd respondent has not brought to the
notice of the Police about the claim of claimants based on Ex.P9, the
alleged lost cover note and has not taken any steps for investigation of
this matter to find out as to how the claimants have produced the lost
cover note. It is pertinent to note that officer incharge of the branch at the
time the cover note was lost had resigned from service of the 2 nd
respondent. R.W.2 official incharge of the Branch admitted that they have
not taken any action against the official whose signature was found in the
cover note. Further, it is not the case of 2nd respondent-Insurance
Company that the cover note duly signed by the official was lost. They
have not denied that D.Yogesh is their Agent and not given any
complaint against the said D.Yogesh, after coming to know that cover
note, Ex.P9 was issued by him. Considering all the above materials in its
entirety, it is clear that the 2nd respondent has not proved that book
containing cover note, Ex.P9 relied on by the claimants and 1st
respondent for claiming compensation from the 2nd respondent-Insurance
Company was lost.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
18.In all the judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing
for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, it has been held that the
claimants have to prove that the insurance policy was in force at the time
of accident and owner of the vehicle also must prove that vehicle was
insured at the time of accident. In the present case, the claimants
examined 3rd claimant as P.W.1 and 1st claimant as P.W.2 and deposed
that the vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent at the time of
accident and produced cover note which was marked as Ex.P9. The
owner of the vehicle/1st respondent was examined by the 2nd respondent
as R.W.1, who deposed that he handed over the original policy, premium
receipt and cover note to the Police. He was treated as hostile witness
and counsel for the 2nd respondent cross-examined owner of the vehicle
as R.W.1, but nothing advantageous to the 2nd respondent was elicited
from R.W.1. The claimants examined P.W.4, Sub-Inspector of Police,
who was not an Investigating Officer. He has deposed that policy is not
available in their file. At the same time, he denied the suggestion put by
the counsel for the 2nd respondent that at the time of accident, offending
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
vehicle was not insured with the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has
not taken any steps to recall P.W.4 and summon the Investigating Officer
to prove that evidence of R.W.1 is false. From para 18 of the judgment
reported in 2016 (2) TNMAC 433 (Delhi) (referred to above), relied on
by the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, it is seen that the
Insurance Company has taken disciplinary proceedings against their
employee, P.S.Bisht, Assistant of the Insurance Company. In the present
case, no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against their official
Amutha who was shown as authorised signatory and whose signature
was found in the cover note as signatory.
19.In para 15 of the very same judgment, it is seen that the owner
of the vehicle remained exparte before the Tribunal as well as in the
appeal. In the present case, owner was examined as R.W.1.
20.In the judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for
the 2nd respondent, the stand of the Insurance Company is that the policy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
produced by the claimant is forged and fabricated. In the present case, it
is not the case of the 2nd respondent that cover note was forged and
fabricated one. On the other hand, their case is that book containing
cover note No.LUB 0060607 including cover note No.098011061, relied
on by the claimants was lost. The 2nd respondent has not examined the
official who gave the complaint even after coming to know of the cover
note produced by the claimants. Even after coming to know of the cover
note produced by the claimants before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent
has not approached the Police to take action against the claimants, owner
of the vehicle and Amutha, authorised signatory and D.Yogesh, their
Agent. Had the 2nd respondent given a complaint to the Police against
D.Yogesh, their authorised Agent, the Police would have investigated the
matter and found out as to how D.Yogesh and Amutha came to
possession of the cover note relied on by the claimants as well as the 1 st
respondent, owner of the vehicle which according to the 2nd respondent
was lost in Vellore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
21.Further, in a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
reported in 2018 (2) TNMAC 215 (referred to above), the Insurance
Company has let in evidence to prove that cover note relied on by the
claimants in that case was issued to another Bus bearing Registration
No.TN-04-K-0483, in favour of Saveetha Engineering College, Saveetha
Nagar, Thandalam, Sriperumbudur and not to the offending vehicle in
that case. In that case also, the owner of the vehicle remained exparte. In
view of the above materials, the judgments relied on is not applicable to
the facts of the present case. It is clear that the 2 nd respondent failed to
prove that cover note produced by the claimants in the present case is lost
and was not issued by the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal considering all
the materials, held that the 2nd respondent failed to prove that the cover
note produced by the claimants was not issued by them. There is no error
in the finding of the Tribunal, warranting interference by this Court.
22.For the above reason, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are
dismissed and the amounts awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.1,88,000/-,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
Rs.2,07,500/- and Rs.10,64,000/- together with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit are
confirmed. The respondents are jointly and severally directed to deposit
the award amount along with interest and costs, within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the credit of
M.C.O.P. Nos.511, 510 & 509 of 2011.
(i) On such deposit in M.C.O.P.No.511 of 2011, the award amount
is directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Bank, till the
minor claimant attains majority. Brundadevi, mother of the minor
claimant is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest, once in three
months for the welfare of the minor claimant.
(ii)On such deposit in M.C.O.P.No.510 of 2011, the claimant is
permitted to withdraw the award amount, along with interest and costs,
after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary
applications before the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
(iii)On such deposit in M.C.O.P.No.509 of 2011, the claimants 1, 3
and 4 are permitted to withdraw their share of the award amount, along
with proportionate interest and costs, as per the ratio of apportionment
fixed by the Tribunal, after adjusting the amount, if any, already
withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. The
share of the minor 2nd claimant is directed to be deposited in any one of
the Nationalized Bank, till the minor attains majority. The 1st claimant,
mother of the minor 2nd claimant is permitted to withdraw the accrued
interest, once in three months for the welfare of the minor 2nd claimant.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
24.02.2021
Index : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
gsa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
V.M.VELUMANI, J.,
gsa
To
1.The II Additional District Judge,
(Motor Accident Claims Tribunal),
Salem.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R Section,
High Court, Madras.
Pre-delivery common judgment made in
C.M.A.Nos.2339, 2342 and 2344 of 2019
24.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
