Madras High Court
Branch Manager vs Muruganantham on 23 November, 2021
CMA(MD)No.352 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
CMA(MD)No.352 of 2020 &
CMP(MD)Nos.4568 of 2020 & 6838 of 2021
Branch Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
Keelaraja Veethi,
Pudukottai
... Appellant
vs.
1.Muruganantham
2.Chithra
3.Minor Nagapradeepam
(3rd Minor petitioner is represented through his
father/guardian/1st respondent, Muruganantham)
4.Chinnathambi ... Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated
12.04.2018 in MCOP.No.444 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
CMA(MD)No.352 of 2020
For Appellant :Mr.R.Rajamani
For Respondents :Mr.T.Lenin Kumar for R1 to R3
No appearance for R4
JUDGMENT
The appellant filed this appeal against the Judgment and Decree
dated 12.04.2018 in MCOP.No.444 of 2014 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai on
the ground that on the date of accident, the driver of the offending
vehicle was not in possession of valid driving licence.
2. The respondents 1 to 3/claimants filed MCOP.No.444 of 2014,
claiming compensation for the death of one Pavithra in an accident that
took place on 13.11.2009. The Tribunal after analysing the entire
evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs.4,60,000/- together with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, as compensation to the
respondents 1 and 2/claimants 1 and 2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.352 of 2020
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
driver of the offending vehicle, namely, tractor bearing Registration
No.TN 55 S 1786 had no valid driving licence on the date of the accident
and hence there is a violation of policy. Therefore, he would submit that,
the Tribunal was wrong in directing the appellant/second respondent to
pay the compensation amount to the claimants and prayed for ordering
pay and recovery.
4. Heard Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 to 3. Even though, notice has been served to the fourth
respondent/owner of the offending vehicle, no representation on his
behalf.
5. The sole ground raised by the appellant/Insurance Company in
this appeal is that the driver of the offending vehicle was not in
possession of valid driving licence on the date of accident. Admittedly,
the tractor was registered with the appellant/Insurance Company. The
driver of the tractor was examined as RW2 before the Tribunal. In his
evidence, he had admitted that he was not possessing valid driving
licence on the date of the accident. The driver himself admitted that he
was not in possession of valid driving licence on the date of accident and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.352 of 2020
hence, it is a clear case of violation of Policy and the Tribunal ought to
have awarded pay and recovery. Therefore, the order passed by Tribunal
directing the appellant/Insurance Company to pay the compensation is
alone hereby set aside and the appellant/Insurance Company is directed
to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at the first instance,
and then, recover the same from the fourth respondent/owner of the
tractor bearing Registration No.TN 55 S 1786.
6. In the result,
(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(ii) The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
confirmed.
(iii) The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal ie., Rs.4,60,000/- together with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till
the date of deposit to the credit of MCOP.No.444 of 2014 on the file of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Principal District Court,
Pudukottai within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.352 of 2020
(iv) On such deposit being made, the respondents 1 and
2/claimants 1 and 2 are at liberty to withdraw the same after following
due process of law. The apportionment granted by the Tribunal shall be
kept intact.
23.11.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
mbi
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.
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Principal District Court, Pudukottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.352 of 2020
S.ANANTHI, J.
mbi
CMA(MD)No.352 of 2020
23.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
