Madras High Court
M.Jeevitha vs S.Valarmathi on 5 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.1295 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1295 of 2011
1. M.Jeevitha
2. R.V.Sankari
3. N.M.Dhandayutham
4. M.Mukeswaran (minor)
(minors rep by his mother and next friend
the 1st appellant) ... Appellants
..Vs..
1.S.Valarmathi,
W/o G.Sundaramoorthy,
No.48/1, Ramar Koil Street, Minnur Village and Post,
Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District.
2.The Divisional Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
C.S.I. Buildings, No.1, Officers Line, Vellore-1.
3.D.Saravanan,
S/o Dhandayutham,
No.11, Gandhi Road, 4th Lane, Ambur,
Vellore District.
4.The Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
No.19, Officer's Line, Vellore-1. ... Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1295 of 2011
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.24
of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Addl. District
and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Vellore.
For Appellants : Mr. M.Sivakumar
For Respondents 1 & 3 : No Appearance
Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy for R-2
Mrs.R.Sreevidhya for R-4
*********
JUDGMENT
The wife, parents, and minor son who are the dependents of
the deceased Manikandan have filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.24 of
2006 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- for the
death of Manikandan in a road accident.
2. On 12.11.2004 at 11.00 p.m., the deceased Manikandan,
husband of the first appellant/claimant met with an accident while he was
riding two-wheeler Bajaj Kawasaki bearing registration No.TN 23 R 8491 in
Ambur to Pernambut road next to Chinnavarikkam Village, a lorry bearing
registration No.TN 23P 8438 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner, hit the two wheeler and caused grievous injuries to Manikandan all
over his body and he was taken to Government hospital, Ambur for
treatment where it was informed that Manikandan died on the way to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1295 of 2011
hospital. A case in Cr.No.638 of 2004 was registered under Sec.304(A) of
I.P.C. by Umabarath police station. The deceased was 27 years at the time
of accident, earned Rs.10,000/- per month by running a grocery shop. The
first petitioner is the wife, second and third petitioners are the parents and
fourth petitioner is the minor son of the deceased Manikandan. The first
and third respondents are owners and the second and fourth respondents
are the insurers of both the vehicles involved in the accident.
3. The second respondent Insurance Company denied the said
averments of the claimants/appellants.
4 The Tribunal has gone into the objection raised by the
second respondent Insurance Company and perused the copy of the F.I.R.
wherein it was noted that the police have registered a case as hit and run
case and the police was not able to trace the vehicle which caused accident
and filed final report before the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court by
stating that the F.I.R. was closed as ''Undetected'' and no vehicle was
subjected to Motor Vehicle Inspection. Further, the Tribunal also found
that since the policy did not cover the rider (deceased) of the two wheeler
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1295 of 2011
who was not the owner of the two wheeler, the respondents 3 and 4
Insurers of the vehicle are not liable to pay any compensation to the
claimants and dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants.
5. Dissatisfied with the order of the Tribunal, the claimants
are before this Court in the appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and
the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 4 and perused the
materials available on record.
7. Admittedly, no other material has been placed before this
Court to prove that the lorry bearing registration No.TN 23P 8438 involved
in the accident and caused death of the deceased. In such circumstances,
there is no warrant to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.
8. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that
under Sec.163 of M.V. Act, 1988, there is a scheme for appellants on hit and
run case. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants seeks liberty to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1295 of 2011
approach the concerned authority to seek remedy provided the period in
which the aforesaid litigation was pending before the Claims Tribunal be
excluded. Under the Motor Vehicle Act, there is no period of limitation.
However, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the authority
concerned and file an application. The authority concerned on receipt of
such application, shall consider the same and fact that the said litigation
was pending before the Tribunal without taking note of the delay in
approaching the authority concerned in filing an application and pass
appropriate orders.
9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the above
observations. No costs.
05.01.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
vaan
To
1. The Divisional Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
C.S.I. Buildings, No.1, Officers Line, Vellore-1.
2. The Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Company Ltd., No.19, Officer's Line, Vellore-1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1295 of 2011
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.,
vaan
CMA.No.1295 of 2011
05.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
