Madras High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs P.Indira on 30 September, 2021
C.M.A.No.745 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A. No. 745 of 2018
and
C.M.P.Nos.6330 of 2018 & 12275 of 2019
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Motor Third Party Claims, HUB,
No.217, Prakasam Salai,
Broadway, Chennai - 600 108. ... Appellant
Vs
1. P.Indira
2. (Minor) P.Salaivalli @ Solai
3. (Minor) Soundarya
4. (Minor) P.Vijayalakshmi
(Respondents 2, 3 & 4 are represented
by their mother and next friend P.Indira)
5. P.Shanmughapriya
6. M.Nallu Gounder
7.N.Chellammal @ Chellam
8.C.Karthikeyan ... Respondents
Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 07.12.2017 made in
M.C.O.P.No. 8388 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.745 of 2018
For Appellant : Mr.S.Arun Kumar
For Respondents 1 to 7 : M/s.P.T.Saleem Fathima
for Mr M.Swamikkannu.
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, challenging its
liability to pay compensation under the impugned order dated 07.12.2017, passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in
M.C.O.P.No.8388 of 2015.
2. The appellant has challenged the impugned award on the following
grounds.
a) the deceased himself is a tort-feasor.
b) The Tribunal has erroneously converted the claim
filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988
into a claim filed under Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and has determined the
compensation.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.745 of 2018
3. As per the respondents/claimants' own pleadings, they have stated
that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month and
was working in the office of the Marungapuri Panchayat Union Office, Trichy
District, in which case, the claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles
Act,1988 is not maintainable.
4. Insofar as the first contention raised by the appellant Insurance
Company that the deceased himself is a tort-feasor is concerned, this Court is in
agreement with the contention of the appellant Insurance Company for the
following reasons:
a) No third party vehicle was involved in the accident,
b) In the claim petition filed before the Tribunal, the
respondents/claimants themselves have admitted that the
deceased who was the rider of the insured motor cycle, fell
down from the motor cycle, due to the bad condition of the
road.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.745 of 2018
b) The First Information Report has also been registered
only against the deceased which has been marked as Ex.P1.
Therefore it is clear that the deceased himself was a tort-
feasor, for which, the appellant Insurance Company cannot
be held liable to pay the compensation.
c) Further, the Insurance policy marked as Ex.R2 also does
not give coverage for the driver of the insured motor cycle.
5. Insofar as the second contention raised by the appellant Insurance
Company is concerned, this Court will have to necessarily agree with the said
contention for the following reasons:-
a) In the claim petition, the respondents/claimants have
pleaded that the deceased was earning a sum of
Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month and was
working in Marungapuri Panchayat Union Office, Trichy
District.
b) The Tribunal under the impugned order has converted
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.745 of 2018
the claim into a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. For a claim filed under Section
163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the maximum
income of the accident victim should not exceed
Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) per annum.
Admittedly, when the monthly income of the deceased is
between Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- as per the
respondents/claimants' own pleading in the claim
petition, the Tribunal ought not to have converted the
claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles
Act,1988. Therefore, the second contention is also
answered in favour of the appellant Insurance Company.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that
the impugned award has been passed contrary to the evidence available on record
and also contrary to law.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.745 of 2018
ABDUL QUDDHOSE,J.
rgi
7. Accordingly this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
30.09.2021
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
rgi
To
1. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Chief Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras – 104.
C.M.A. No. 745 of 2018
http://www.judis.nic.in
