The Authorized Signatory vs Ramaraju
2021 Latest Caselaw 22729 Mad

                                                                                   C.M.A.No.1834 of 2018

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 19.11.2021

                                                           CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL

                                                C.M.A.No.1834 of 2018
                                               and CMP No.14221 of 2018

                  The Authorized signatory,
                  M/s.Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited,
                  100 Feet Road,
                  Mudaliarpet, Puducherry.                                            .. Appellant
                                                     Vs.

                  1. Ramaraju
                  2. M.Krishnan                                                       .. Respondents


                            Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor

                  Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award and Decree made in MCOP No.740 of

                  2015, dated 17.01.2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

                  Additional Subordinate Court, Presiding Officer at Puducherry.


                                    For Appellant      :     Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan

                                    For Respondents    :     Mr.T.Ananthasekar


                                                       JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company

against the Award and Decree passed in MCOP No.740 of 2015, dated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.1834 of 2018

17.01.2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional

Subordinate Court, Presiding Officer at Puducherry.

2. The appellant is the second respondent in MCOP No.740 of 2015

filed by the claimant / first respondent herein. The Tribunal awarded a sum of

Rs.1,77,500/- as compensation in favour of the first respondent/claimant for

the injuries sustained in the road accident that occurred on 27.04.2015.

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant Insurance Company has preferred this

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

3. As per the claim petition, the first respondent/claimant who was aged

about 41 years at the time of accident, was employed as a supervisor under one

PWD Contractor and was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- pm. On 27.04.2015 at

about 12.15 hours, the claimant was riding his motorcycle viz., Hero Honda

CD 100 SS bearing Reg.No.PY 01 M 8715 in Chinnasubraya Pillai Street from

North to South. While he was trying to turn eastern direction towards

Uppalam and was passing on the junction of Subbaya Salai and Pathar sahib

street, opp. Kala Hotel, at that time, the first respondent drove the motor bike

viz., TVS star City bearing Reg No.PY 01 AG 7723 in a rash and negligent

manner and dashed against the claimant. In the impact, the claimant sustained https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.1834 of 2018

comminuted anterior barton fracture in left forearm with multiple injuries all

over the body and immediately he was taken to Government General Hospital,

Pondicherry and thereafter he had taken treatment at Saikirupa hospital,

Pondicherry as the injuries sustained are grievous. During the course of his

hospitalization, he had also underwent surgery over his wrist of left hand and a

rod was fixed in the wrist. It is stated that the claimant was hospitalized as an

inpatient from 30.04.2015 to 04.05.2015. Therefore, for the injuries sustained

in the accident, the claimant had filed the claim petition, claiming a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.

4. The appellant / Insurance Company opposed the claim petition mainly

on the ground that the first respondent drove the vehicle without valid driving

licence and as there is a clear violation of policy conditions by the first

respondent, the Insurance Company cannot be called upon to pay

compensation to the claimant. The appellant/Insurance Company also denied

the age and income of the claimant / first respondent and therefore he prayed

for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. Before the Tribunal, the claimant has examined himself as PW1 and

Exs.P1 to P10 were marked on the side of the claimant. The Disability https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.1834 of 2018

Certificate was marked as Ex.X1 as Court Document. On behalf of the

Insurance Company, one Saravanan was examined as D.W.1. Exs.R1 to R3

were marked on the side of the Insurance Company.

6. The Tribunal on analyzing the oral and documentary evidence had

held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

second respondent herein, whose vehicle is insured with the appellant

Insurance Company. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appellant Insurance

Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant. As regards the

quantum, the Tribunal has taken note of the medical records, particularly, the

Disability Certificate, issued by the Medical Board where it is stated that the

claimant has suffered 5% disability, as per Ex.X1. Therefore, the Tribunal

awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability and thereby awarded

a total sum of Rs.15,000/- for 5% disability. For pain and sufferings, a sum of

Rs.25,000/- was awarded and a sum of Rs.47,500/- was awarded for medical

expenses based on Ex.P6 medical bills. For loss of income during the period

of treatment, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/-. The Tribunal has

awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- separately towards Transportation and Extra

nourishment. For Attender charges, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded and in

all, a sum of Rs.1,77,500/- was awarded as compensation by the Tribunal. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.1834 of 2018

Assailing the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant/Insurance Company

has come up with the present appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that when the

first respondent has no valid licence for driving a vehicle, calling upon the

appellant Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimant is totally

injustice. Even though a specific defence was raised by the appellant that the

first respondent did not possess a valid driving licence, the Tribunal has taken

note of Ex.P2, photocopy of the driving licence of the first respondent/driver

of the vehicle and given a finding that the first respondent was having valid

driving license. According to the appellant, this finding of the Tribunal is

factually incorrect inasmuch as Ex.P2 is a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) licence

which will not confer any right to the appellant to drive the two wheeler. In

this context, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the

decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Beli Ram vs. Rajinder Kumar

and another (Civil Appeal No. 7220-7221 of 2011) dated 23.09.2020. In that

case, the first respondent therein met with an accident on 20.05.1999 while

driving a truck owned by the appellant therein, under whom he was gainfully

employed. However, his licence to drive the truck had expired three months

before the accident. The Honourable Supreme Court therefore had an occasion https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.1834 of 2018

to consider the extent of care or diligence required to be taken by the employer

or insured while employing a driver. Ultimately, it was held that if the

Insurance Company is able to prove that the owner/insured was aware or had

notice that the licence was fake or invalid and still permitted the person to

drive, the Insurance Company would no longer be liable to pay compensation.

By pointing out the above decision, the learned counsel contended that Ex.P2,

LMV licence issued to the first respondent in this case will not authorise or

permit him to drive the two wheeler belonged to the second respondent herein

and therefore, when there is a violation of policy condition, the Insurance

Company cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay compensation. The

learned counsel would also contend that the amount of compensation awarded

by the Tribunal at Rs.25,000/- for Extra Nourishment, Rs.25,000/- towards

transportation charges and Rs.25,000/- for pain and sufferings are excessive

and they warrant interference by this Court.

8. On the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellant /

Insurance Company, this Court heard the learned counsel for the respondents

who justified the award passed by the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of this

appeal.

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

C.M.A.No.1834 of 2018

9. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and

perused the materials placed on record.

10. Admittedly, it is a case of injury. What is questioned here is that the

first respondent, driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence.

Ex.P2, Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) licence will not authorise him to drive the

two wheeler. However, the Tribunal has specifically given a finding that the

first respondent, driver of the vehicle was in possession of driving license at

the time of accident, but the appellant has not filed any documentary evidence

to disprove the same. The fact remains that the first respondent was in

possession of a Light Motor Vehicle. The licence was very much in existence

on the date of accident. However, with the LMV licence, the first respondent

ought not to have driven the two wheeler – Star City bike. Merely because the

first respondent driven the two wheeler with a LMV licence, per se it would

not preclude him from getting compensation from the Insurance Company. It

is not the case of the appellant-Insurance company that Ex.P2 produced by the

first respondent is fake or invalid. Therefore, even assuming that there is a

violation of policy condition, the Insurance Company can at the best pay the

compensation amount to the injured and later recover it from the owner of the

two wheeler.

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

C.M.A.No.1834 of 2018

11. As far as the quantum of compensation, the claimant was aged 42

years at the time of accident and he has been hospitalized for about 7 days,

during which he had underwent surgery in his left hand wrist. For medical

expenses, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.47,500/- based on medical

bills. For disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- at the rate of

Rs.3,000/- per percentage of disability. Similarly, for pain and sufferings and

extra nourishment, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- each in and

around the Tribunal has totally awarded as sum of Rs.1,77,500/- under various

heads, which in the opinion of this Court, cannot be said to be exorbitant. The

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proportionate to the nature of

injuries sustained by the claimant, the loss suffered by the claimant on account

of non employment for a period of six months and the treatment taken for

about a week as inpatient. Having regard to the above common disputed facts,

this Court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and

reasonable, which does not require any interference by this Court.

12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. The

award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. The appellant/Insurance Company

is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal

together with interest at 7.5% per annum within a period of six weeks from the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.No.1834 of 2018

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment at the first instant and recover the

same from the 2nd respondent/owner of the vehicle. On such deposit, the first

respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount

with accrued interest on filing proper application. No costs. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

19.11.2021

vum

Index: Yes / No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order

To

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Subordinate Court, Presiding Officer, Puducherry.

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

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

C.M.A.No.1834 of 2018

S.KANNAMMAL, J.

vum

C.M.A.No.1834 of 2018

19.11.2021

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