M/S.United India Insurance Co vs M.Kannan
2021 Latest Caselaw 14032 Mad

                                                                                 CMA.No.1119 of 2016



                                          In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

                                                      Dated : 14.7.2021

                                                          Coram

                                        The Honourable Mr.Justice ABDUL QUDDHOSE
                                         Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1119 of 2016
                                                   and CMP.No.8404 of 2016


                     M/s.United India Insurance Co.
                     Ltd., Chennai-93                                             ...Appellant
                                                             Vs
                     1.M.Kannan
                     2.G.Sivaraman Krishnan                                       ...Respondents


                                   APPEAL under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

                     against the fair and decretal order dated 02.6.2015 in MCOP.No.478 of

                     2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Third

                     Additional District Court), Tiruvallur at Poonamalle.



                                     For Appellant :  Mr.E.Rajadurai for Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan
                                     For Respondent-2:served and no appearance

                                                         JUDGMENT

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – Insurance

Company challenging the award dated 02.6.2015 passed by the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal (Third Additional District Court), Tiruvallur at

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMA.No.1119 of 2016

Poonamalle in MCOP.No.478 of 2013.

3. The appellant – Insurance Company has challenged the

impugned award only on the ground that the Tribunal has erroneously

failed to grant pay and recovery rights to them despite the finding that

the driver of the insured vehicle was not possessing a valid driving

licence for a two wheeler as he was holding a driving licence for a four

wheeler alone.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance

Company drew the attention of this Court to the finding of the Tribunal

under the impugned award and in particular, referred to paragraph 12

of the impugned award wherein the Tribunal has given a categorical

finding that the rider of the motor cycle was not possessing a driving

licence for driving a two wheeler whereas he was possessing a driving

licence only to drive a four wheeler.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant also drew the attention

of this Court to the driving licence possessed by the driver of the

motor cycle, which had been marked as Ex.R2 before the Tribunal and

would submit that despite the categorical finding of the Tribunal that

the rider of the motor vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence to

drive a two wheeler, the Tribunal has not granted pay and recovery

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMA.No.1119 of 2016

rights to the appellant – Insurance Company under the impugned

award.

6. In this appeal, the notice was sent to the owner of the two

wheeler (insured vehicle) and was duly served and his name is printed

in the cause list today. Despite the same, he has not chosen to appear

before this Court.

7. Admittedly, as seen from the evidence available on record, the

rider of the motor vehicle (insured vehicle) was possessing only a

driving licence for a four wheeler and not for a two wheeler. The

Tribunal has also given a categorical finding to that effect. However,

the Tribunal has erroneously failed to grant pay and recovery rights,

which the appellant – Insurance Company is legally entitled to in view

of the fact that the insured has committed a policy violation.

8. With regard to quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal to the claimant, the appellant – Insurance Company has not

raised any serious dispute as seen from the grounds of appeal filed by

them.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the above civil miscellaneous

appeal is partly allowed by directing the appellant – Insurance

Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimant – first

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMA.No.1119 of 2016

respondent herein as determined by the Tribunal under the impugned

award and thereafter recover the same from the second respondent

herein in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected

CMP is closed.

10. When the matter came up for admission, this Court directed

the appellant – Insurance Company to deposit the entire award

amount with interest to the credit of the claim petition. The Tribunal is

directed to transfer the balance award amount together with interest

lying to the credit of the claim petition directly to the bank account of

the first respondent herein through RTGS within two weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

14.7.2021 To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Third Additional District Court), Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.

RS

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMA.No.1119 of 2016

ABDUL QUDDHOSE,J

RS

CMA.No.1119 of 2016& CMP.No.8404 of 2016

14.7.2021

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