C.Amsaveni vs K.Murugan
2021 Latest Caselaw 5798 Mad

                                                             1



                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED: 04.03.2021

                                                         CORAM:

                                      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKA RAMAN

                                                   C.M.A.No.2679 of 2015

                   C.Amsaveni                                                      ... Appellant
                                                             Vs.

                   1.K.Murugan
                   2.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
                      Branch Office,
                      Namakkal,
                      Salem District                                              ... Respondents


                   PRAYER:          Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                   Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and decree dated 29.11.2013 in
                   M.C.O.P.No. 754 of 1997, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
                   Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri.


                                   For Appellant     : M/s.Mukund R.Pandiyan

                                   For R1            : No appearance

                                   For R2            : Mr.S.Arunkumar




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




                                                          JUDGMENT

The claim petitioner is the appellant herein.

2. The claim petitioner who sustained injury in a road accident has

filed the above M.C.O.P under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle's Act, claiming

compensation on the ground that due to the rash and negligence driving of the

driver of the first respondent.

3. Before the Tribunal, the second respondent/Insurance Company

has filed a counter statement, denying the insurance policy coverage. The

Tribunal after trial, has held that the accident has taken place due to the rash

and negligence driving of the driver of the first respondent. However, relying

upon Exs.R1 to R4 has held that the offending vehicle is not insured with the

second respondent/Insurance Company and accordingly, exonerated the

Insurance Company from liability and passed an award against the owner of the

vehicle. Aggrieved against the said exoneration of the Insurance Company from

liability, the claim petitioner has preferred this appeal.

4. Heard both sides.

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

5. The learned counsel for the claim petitioner has drawn my

attention to Ex.P4 Motor Vehicle Inspector Report, wherein, there is a reference

that the vehicle is insured with the Oriental Insurance Company and also drawn

my attention to the evidence of P.W.3, Junior Assistant from R.T.O office.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has

drawn my attention to the letter Ex.R3 of the Namakkal branch, wherein, the

vehicle is alleged to have been insured with the Insurance Company and also

Ex.R4 wherein, the very same accident, another claim petition was filed, wherein

the Insurance Company was exonerated for want of insurance.

7. After taking note of the arguments of both sides, I find that there

is a reference in Ex.P4 that the vehicle is insured by the Oriental Insurance

Company without mentioning the policy number taken and such a certified copy

ought not to have been marked before the trial Court and hence I have no

hesitation to reject the said Ex.P4 and further P.W.3 is not a competent person

to depose on support of Ex.P4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for

the respondent, notice has been sent to the owner of the vehicle and in respect

of very same accident, another claim petition seems to have been filed in

M.C.O.P.No.643/1997 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge No.III,

Krishnagiri District, having a similar finding viz., holding that there is no

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

insurance policy coverage for the very same offending vehicle has been

confirmed and hence I find that in view of Exs.R1 to R4 and in the absence of

any evidentiary value for Ex.P4, the trial Court has rightly come to the

conclusion that the Insurance Company is not liable and hence the said finding

does not warrant any interference.

8. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

04.03.2021

nvi

Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order

To

1. The Additional District Judge, The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri.

2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

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

RMT.TEEKA RAMAN, J.

nvi

C.M.A.No.2679 of 2015

04.03.2021

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