The Branch Manager vs Mrs.M.Seetha : R1/Claimant
2021 Latest Caselaw 493 Mad

                                                       1

                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              Dated: 07.01.2021

                                                   CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI

                                         C.M.A(MD)No.805 of 2015
                                                   and
                                            MP(MD)No.3 of 2015
                     The Branch Manager,
                     M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
                     Thirunagar,
                     Madurai District.                  : Appellant/4th Respondent

                                                      Vs.

                     1.Mrs.M.Seetha                      : R1/Claimant
                     2.Mr.Kalidass                       : R2/1st Respondent
                     3.The Branch Manager,
                       The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
                       Karaikudi.                         : R3/2nd Respondent

                     4.Mr.J.Parthasarathi                   : R4/3rd Respondent
                       (R4 was remained ex-parte before
                       the Tribunal. Hence, notice to him
                       is given up)

                            PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under
                     Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award
                     passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court),
                     Sivagangai, made in MCOP No.49 of 2008, dated 21.08.2013.

                                      For Appellant         : Mr.P.Rajesh Saravanan
                                      For 1st Respondent    : Mr.V.Kannan
                                      For 2nd Respondent : No appearance
                                      For 3rd Respondent    : Mr.K.Bhaskaran
                                      For 4th Respondent    : Given Up




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                         2

                                                  JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed challenging

the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub

Court), Sivagangai, made in MCOP No.49 of 2008, dated

21.08.2013.

2.The short facts of the case is that on 03.06.2007 when the

claimant M.Seetha and her relative Raja travelling in TVS-XL

TN-59-AD-1540 at Koonangulam Maraneri Kanmoi Road, near

Muniyappaswamy temple, the Tractor TN-67-B-6750 came in a rash

and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler. In that

process, the both the rider and pillion rider sustained multiple

injuries. A claim petition was filed by the claimant seeking

compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on the ground that the offending

vehicle caused the accident.

3.The Tribunal, on consideration of oral and documentary

evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the

driver of the offending vehicle has caused the accident and

awarded compensation of Rs.1,29,750/- together with interest @

7.5% p.a and ordered to deposit the awarded amount by the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

respondents 1 to 4 in the claim petition. Aggrieved over the same,

the United India Insurance Company is before this court as

appellant.

4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on

record.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance

Company mainly argued that the tribunal erred in holding that the

appellant Insurance Company is also liable to pay the compensation

without appreciating the evidence on record and the tribunal failed

to consider the fact that the claimant herself admitted that the

accident was occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of

the Tractor TN-67-B-6750, which was owned by the 2nd respondent

herein and insured with the 3rd respondent/the Oriental Insurance

Company Limited and the tribunal failed to consider the fact that

the FIR was registered against the driver of the Tractor, which was

insured with the 3rd Respondent Insurance Company and the

tribunal wrongly directed the respondents 1 to 4 in the claim

petition to pay the compensation jointly and severally, after holding

that the accident was occurred only due to the negligence of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

driver of the Tractor, which was insured with the 3rd respondent

Insurance Company and prays for allowing the Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal.

6.In this case, the only dispute is with regard to the

negligence. The claimant has filed the claim petition as against the

appellant and respondents 2 to 4 herein. In this case, the appellant

and 3rd respondent herein are the contesting respondents. On

perusal of the First Information Report, the tribunal has come to

the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the negligent

driving of the 2nd respondent/Tractor driver and only the 2nd

respondent is liable to pay the compensation. But the tribunal has

wrongly given a finding holding that all the respondents before the

tribunal are liable to pay the compensation.

7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance

Company submitted that in this case, already FIR was registered as

against the 2nd respondent/Tractor driver and hence, the 3rd

respondent Oriental Insurance Company/2nd respondent herein

alone is liable to pay the compensation.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

8.In this case, for the alleged accident, FIR was registered

against the driver of the Tractor and the Tractor was insured with

the 3rd respondent Oriental Insurance Company and hence, it is

held that the 3rd respondent Insurance Company herein alone is

liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. The appellant

Insurance Company and the 4th respondent herein are formal

parties and hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation.

9.In view of the above facts, this court finds that the

appellant Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation

to the claimant as awarded by the tribunal. The 3rd respondent

Oriental Insurance Company is alone liable to pay the

compensation to the claimant, as the alleged Tractor was insured

with them. The 3rd respondent Insurance Company is directed to

deposit the entire award amount together with interest, as ordered

by the tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order, less the amount already deposited.

On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire

amount together with accrued interest and costs, without filing any

formal petition before the tribunal. The appellant Insurance

Company is at liberty to get back the deposited amount before the

tribunal in the manner known to law.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

10.Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in

part. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is

closed.

07.01.2021

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

T.KRISHNAVALLI,J

er

To,

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ The Sub Court, Sivagangai.

2.The Record Keeper, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Judgement made in CMA(MD)No.805 of 2015

07.01.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/