Madras High Court
The Manager vs K.Dhanapal on 22 October, 2021
C.M.A.No.3624 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.3624 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
The Manager,
United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
33/24-C, Gandhi Nagar,
Behind Central Theater,
Krishnagiri - 685 001. .. Appellant
Vs.
1. K.Dhanapal
2. R.Vediappan
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Siddaveerappa Chetty Street,
Dharmapuri.
4. K.Sivalingam .. Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated
23.08.2011 passed in M.C.O.P.No.863 of 2008 on the file of the Motor
Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/5
C.M.A.No.3624 of 2014
For Appellant : Ms.I.Malar
For Respondents 1,2&4 : No appearance
For Respondent 3 : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy
-----
JUDGMENT
(The case has been heard through video conference)
This appeal has been filed by the insurance company challenging its
liability to pay compensation under the impugned award dated 23.08.2011,
passed by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dharmapuri in M.C.O.P.No.863 of 2008.
2. The appellant insurance company has challenged the impugned
award on the ground that even though the Tribunal under the impugned
award has given a categorical finding that the rider of the motorcycle insured
with the third respondent alone is responsible for the cause of the accident,
has erroneously held that the appellant insurance company should jointly and
severely pay the determined compensation along with the third respondent
insurance company.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company
draw the attention of this Court to the relevant findings of the Tribunal. As
seen from the findings, as rightly contended by the learned counsel
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.3624 of 2014
appearing for the appellant, the Tribunal based on preponderance of
probability and based on the registration of F.I.R. against the rider of the
motorcycle insured with the third respondent has given a categorical finding
that only the third respondent is liable to pay compensation. But, however in
the operative portion of the impugned award has erroneously held that the
appellant insurance company is also liable to pay compensation along with
the third respondent insurance company.
4. The appellant is the insurer of the vehicle bearing Registration
No.TN 24 B 8806 and the third respondent is the insurer of the vehicle
bearing Registration No.TN 24 C 0895. As seen from the evidence available
on record, it is very clear that only due to the rash and negligent driving of
the rider of the motorcycle insured with the third respondent the accident had
happened. The Tribunal has also categorically given a finding accordingly
but however in the operative portion of the award it has erroneously held
that the appellant insurance company is also liable to pay compensation
along with the the third respondent insurance company. It is also brought to
the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the third
respondent that the appeal filed by the third respondent as against the
impugned award in C.M.A.No.1862 of 2013 was also dismissed by this
Court on 23.07.2014.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.3624 of 2014
5. After giving due consideration to the aforementioned factors, this
Court is of the considered view that the impugned award passed against the
appellant insurance company will have to be necessarily set aside and
accordingly the impugned award dated 23.08.2011, passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri in
M.C.O.P.No.863 of 2008, as against the appellant alone is hereby set aside
by this Court and the appeal is allowed. In case the appellant insurance
company has deposited any portion of the award amount, they are permitted
to withdraw the same by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal.
In case the claimants have already withdrawn the amount deposited by the
appellant insurance company, the appellant insurance company is permitted
to seek reimbursement of the same from the third respondent insurance
company. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No
costs.
22.10.2021
Index : Yes / No
kk
To
1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section, High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.3624 of 2014
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
kk
C.M.A.No.3624 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
22.10.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
