Madras High Court
I.Rajan vs Manikandan on 8 March, 2021
C.M.A(MD) No.3 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
C.M.A(MD) No.3 of 2011
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011
I.Rajan .. Appellant/1st Respondent
vs.
1.Manikandan
2.Muthulakshmi
(Respondents 1 & 2 were declared
as major as per the order dated 08.03.2021) ... Respondents/Petitioners
3.The National Insurance Company,
Valliyoor,
Tirunelveli. ..2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988, against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.156 of 2007,
dated 21.07.2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (2nd
Additional District Judge), Tirunelveli.
1/9
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.3 of 2011
For Appellant : Mr.Jerin Mathew
for M.E.Ilango
For R1 & R2 : Dismissed vide order
dated 29.11.2017
For R3 : Mr.D.Rajkumar
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the owner of the vehicle challenging the award
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional District
Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli in M.C.O.P.No.156 of 2007, dated 21.07.2010.
2. The facts in brief:-
The claimants are the minor children of the deceased Ramasamy.
According to them, on 11.12.2005 at 4.30 p.m., the deceased was
walking on the Parappadi-Pappankulam main road, near Doctor Solomon
Thottam. At the time, a two-wheeler bearing registration No.TN-72-
B-4897 owned by the appellant and insured with the second respondent
came in a rash and negligent manner hit against him. In the accident, he
sustained injury and immediately, he was taken to a nearby Dr.Solomon
hospital and after providing first aid, he was shifted to Tirunelveli
Medical College Hospital. Despite the effective treatment, he succumbed
to the injuries on 14.12.2005. The claimants further stated that the
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.3 of 2011
deceased was 35 years on the date of accident and he was working as
skilled labour and thereby he earned Rs.5,000/- per month and hence,
they are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
3. The claim petition was contested by the Insurance Company
disputing the manner of accident and their liability. It is specifically
stated that the vehicle was driven by a person, who was not having valid
and effective driving licence and hence, no liability can be made on the
Insurance Company.
4. Before the Tribunal on behalf of the claimants two witnesses
were examined and 6 exhibits have been marked. The respondents
examined 4 witnesses and marked 7 documents. After analysing the
evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that
the driving licence produced by the driver, who was examined as R.W.4
is a fake licence. Therefore, while awarding compensation of
Rs.6,39,500/-, the Tribunal exonerated the insurance company and
directed the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.3 of 2011
5. Heard Mr.Jerin Mathew, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.D.Rajkumar, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would urge that the
Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the appellant on the ground
that the driver of the vehicle did not have requisite licence since the
vehicle had an insurance coverage on the date of accident. The Tribunal
ought to have issued direction to the Insurance Company to pay and
recover from the owner of the vehicle.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent
placing the reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
2020(2) TNMAC 445-SC (Beli Ram Vs. Rajinder Kumar) would
submit that if the vehicle is driven by a person, who was not having valid
and effective licence, the owner of the offending vehicle has to pay the
award amount and there is no illegality in the order of the Tribunal.
8. In the instant case, this appeal has been preferred by the owner
of the offending vehicle challenging the award passed by the Tribunal. It
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.3 of 2011
is not in dispute that the claimants are the children of the deceased
Ramasamy, who died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on
11.12.2005. The Tribunal taking note of the fact that the deceased died at
the age of 35 years chose to award a compensation of Rs.6,39,500/-. The
quantum is not seriously disputed by the appellant and the only grievance
is that the Tribunal ought to have directed the Insurance Company to pay
the award and thereafter, recover from the owner of the vehicle.
9. The issue involved in this appeal is no longer res integra, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited case, has categorically held that
when driving license is not renewed and accident has occurred after
expiry of driving licence and the driver of the vehicle did not possess
driving license, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay
compensation.
10. The facts of this case reveal that the owner of the offending
vehicle was guilty of negligence. In the sence that even though the
driving licence got expired long back, he permitted the driver to drive the
vehicle. So, in my view, the decision referred above would squarely
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.3 of 2011
apply to the case on hand. The contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
referred to above applies only to the claim made under the Workmen
Compensation Act and not for the claim made under Motor Vehicles Act
is without merits. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment has held
that when the license is not renewed, it amounts to driver not possessing
driving license and Insurance Company is not liable to pay
compensation. The said principle applies not only for the claim made
under the Workmen Compensation Act, but also for claim made under the
Motor Vehicles Act. The same view was taken by this Court in
C.M.A.Nos.3506 & 3507 of 2014, dated 18.11.2020. so I do not find any
substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.
11. By this time, the claimants 2 & 3/Respondents 2 & 3 also
should have become major and hence, the respondents 2 & 3 herein are
suo motu declared as major.
12. In that view, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, as
devoid of merits. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.3 of 2011
amount, with accrued interest and costs, less the amount already
deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the respondents 1 &
2/Claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount as per the
apportionment made by the Tribunal by making necessary application
before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No 08.03.2021
am
Note :
In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.3 of 2011
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
II Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A(MD) No.3 of 2011
K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J.
am
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD) No.3 of 2011
08.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
