Madras High Court
R.Suresh vs K.Saravanan on 25 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.1667 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date: 25.02.2021
Coram::
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
C.M.A.No.1667 of 2017
R.Suresh,
No.89/165, SPM Petrol Bunk Opposite,
Seelanaickenpatti,
Salem – 201. ... Appellant
/versus/
1. K.Saravanan,
2. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Sri Lakshmi Complex,
1st Floor, Bharathi Street,
Swarnapuri,
Salem – 4. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act,
1988, against the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2016 passed in M.C.O.P.No.832
of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Ramesh
For R2 : Mr.S.Arun Kumar
For R1 : Not ready notice
JUDGMENT
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1667 of 2017
The Appeal is filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the order of the
Tribunal which has exonerated the insurance company for want of valid insurance
coverage and fixed the liability on the owner of the vehicle which has caused the
accident.
2. According to the claimant, it is contended that the offending vehicle
was duly insurer with the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company and therefore, the
Tribunal ought not to have exonerated the Insurance Company but should have
directed the insurance Company to pay the compensation instead of directing the
claimant to recover the compensation from the vehicle owner.
3. The Learned Counsel for the appellant would specifically submit that
the Insurance policy copy which was obtained through police and marked as Ex.P.15
would indicate that the offending vehicle bearing registration No.TN-30-F-4331 was
duly insured with the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company and proposal-cum-cover
note for package policy commencing from period from 09.01.2008 00.00 hours was
issued on collection of premium of Rs.733/- and therefore, overlooking the said cover
note, the Tribunal has held that on the date of accident, the offending owner had no
valid insurance coverage.
4. Per contra, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1667 of 2017
Company would submit that the document relied by the appellant is not a genuine
document issued by the Insurance Company and more so, it is hand written
document described as proposal-cum-cover note. It is only a proposal and not actual
policy coverage. It is a fabricated document. The actual insurance policy is marked
as Ex.R.1. The period of coverage commence from 19.01.2008 midnight and end on
18.01.2009. It is package policy, a sum of Rs.733/- was collected inclusive of tax.
On comparing both Ex.P.15 and Ex.R.1, this Court finds that Ex.R.1 is the
authenticated certificate of insurance and Ex.P.15 is only a proposal. The actual
coverage commences only from 19.01.2008, whereas, the accident occurred 10 days
prior to that i.e., 09.01.2008. Therefore, this Court finds that the Tribunal has rightly
exonerated the Insurance Company and fixed the liability on the owner of the vehicle
who had no valid insurance Coverage for his vehicle. In view of the above findings,
this Court finds no merit to interfere the order of tribunal. Hence, Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No cost.
25.02.2021
Index :Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order.
bsm
To:-
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Salem.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
Dr.G.Jayachandran,J.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.1667 of 2017
bsm
C.M.A.No.1667 of 2017
25.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
