Madras High Court
Sathyabalu vs P.Subramanian on 7 July, 2021
C.M.A.No.1874 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.1874 of 2016
Sathyabalu ... Appellant
..Vs..
1.P.Subramanian
2.The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.38, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2. ... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and decree dated 13.09.2012
made in MCOP.No.2696 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, XVI Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mrs.Ramya V.Rao
For R-2 : Mr.D.Baskaran
For R-1 : No appearance.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1874 of 2016
JUDGMENT
(This Appeal has been taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing)
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant aggrieved by the
dismissal of the claim petition in MCOP No.2696 of 2005 by the XVI
Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in its order dated
13.09.2012.
2. Heard Mrs.Ramya V. Rao, learned counsel for the Appellant /
Claimant as well as Mr.D.Baskaran, learned counsel for the Second
Respondent / Insurance Company.
3. The appellant/claimant sustained injuries as a result of an accident
alleged to have been caused by a vehicle owned by the first respondent and
insured with the second respondent. He preferred claim before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act
seeking a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him.
Under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the negligence of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1874 of 2016
offending vehicle need not be pleaded and proved for the purpose of
claiming compensation. However, as seen from the impugned award dated
13.09.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP
No.2696 of 2005, the Tribunal has adjudicated on the negligence aspect.
The relevant portion of the impugned order which is contrary to the
provisions of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act are as follows -
9. Though in the petition by the petitioner it is
stated that the driver of the first respondent's vehicle
drove rash and negligently, the FIR was registered
against the petitioner and it reveals that “B”
ghapz;Lf;Fk; !;gPL gpnuf;Ff;Fk; bfh";rk;
Kd;ghf eh';fs; brd;wnghJ v';fis
ntfkhft[k; m$hf;fpuijahft[k; fle;J brd;w
nkhl;lhh; irf;fps; TMA 5174 vd;w rfjp tz;o
vjphpy; Xukhf te;j TN50 2980
cw%nuhncwhz;lh tz;o kPJ nkhjpaJk;
cw%nuhncwhz;lh tz;oapy; te;j bgah;
nfl;Lj; bjhpe;j Rg;ukzpad; ,lJ fhypy;
mog;gl;L vYk;g[ Kwpe;J elf;fKoatpy;iy.
v';fis Ke;jp brd;w tz;oia Xl;oa egh;
bgah; nfl;L bjhpe;j rj;jpaghY ,lJ fhypy;
kw;Wk; clk;gpy; mog;gl;lJ”......
In the FIR, no rash and negligence on the part of
the driver of the first respondent's vehicle and the
petitioner is mentioned as a tort-feasor. Considering the
FIR and other circumstances, it is held that the accident
had occurred only by the negligence of the petitioner and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1874 of 2016
not of the driver of the first respondent's vehicle. When
there is no fault or negligence on the part of the driver of
the first respondent's vehicle, the 2nd respondent
insurance company is no way liable to pay any
compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner ought to
have impleaded the owner of the vehicle in which he
travelled and also the Insurance company in which the
vehicle was insured. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled
to claim any compensation from the respondents and thus
this point is answered accordingly.
4. By total non-application of mind to the claim which was infact
filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal has
passed the impugned award as if it is a claim filed under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the
impugned judgment and decree dated 13.09.2012 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP No.2696 of 2005 has to be quashed
and the matter remanded back to the very same Tribunal for fresh
consideration on merits and in accordance with law.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and decree
dated 13.09.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP
No.2696 of 2005 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1874 of 2016
very same Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance
with law. The Tribunal is directed to treat the claim petition as one filed
under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and not under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act and pass the award after affording sufficient
opportunity to the appellant / claimant as well as the respondents and also
permitting them to adduce additional evidence, if so required, with regard to
their respective contentions and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order.
6. With the aforesaid direction, this appeal shall stand disposed of.
No costs.
07.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
rgr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1874 of 2016
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
rgr
To
1. The XVI Judge
Small Causes Court,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras.
C.M.A.No.1874 of 2016
07.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
