Madras High Court
M/S United India Insurance ... vs Balan on 14 December, 2022
C.M.A.Nos.3267 of 2017 & 1335 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.12.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
C.M.A.Nos.3267 of 2017 & 1335 of 2018
and
C.M.P.Nos.20401 of 2017 & 10735 of 2018
M/s United India Insurance Company Limited,
Pallivasal Street,
Perambalur. ... Appellant in both
appeals
Vs.
1.Balan
2.Shanthi
3.M/s. Social Change and Development,
No.105, A-1, Bye-Pass Road,
Vannarapettai,
Tirunelveli – 627 002.
... Respondents in CMA No.3267 of 2017
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3267 of 2017 & 1335 of 2018
1.Irudaya Adimai
2.Alphonsal
3.Navilraj
4.John Jagan
5.Mary Lincy Mol
6.M/s. Social Change and Development,
No.105, A-1, Bye-Pass Road,
Vannarapettai,
Tirunelveli – 627 002.
... Respondents in CMA No.1335 of 2018
COMMON PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 173
of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the Judgment and Decree made in MCOP
Nos.714 of 2014 and 578 of 2015 dated 05.01.2017, on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court) Perambalur.
In CMA No.3267 of 2017;
For Appellant : Mr.M.B.Raghavan
For Respondents : Mr.D.Boopal for
Mr.T.Gopinath for R1 and R2
No appearance for R3
In CMA No.1335 of 2018;
For Appellant : Mr.M.B.Raghavan
For Respondents : Mr.D.Boopal for
Mr.T.Gopinath for R1 to R5
No appearance for R6
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3267 of 2017 & 1335 of 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Common Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.]
These appeals have been preferred challenging the Common Award passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Perambalur in
MCOP Nos.578 of 2015 and 714 of 2014 dated 05.01.2017.
2. A Toyotta Innova Car bearing Reg.No.TN-72-AM-6049 belongs to the
respondent Educational Institution, by name, M/s.Social Change and
Development, Tirunelveli. On 23.11.2013, the car was driven by the deceased
Babu John, in which, the deceased Prabhu travelled as occupant. The car met
with an accident at 02.10 p.m and both of them died on the spot. It is the case of
the claimants that the driver of the bus bearing Reg.No.TN-01-AN-0104 drove it
from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and rammed the car.
3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3267 of 2017 & 1335 of 2018
3. It is not in dispute that both the deceased were working as Chief
Administrative Officer and Manager in the respondent Educational Institution.
The legal heirs of the deceased sought compensation in the claim petitions.
Although they have pleaded in the claim petitions that the accident had happened
due to the negligent of the driver of the bus, the owner of the bus was not
impleaded as respondent. It is also seen that the claimants did not examine the
eyewitness to prove the negligence.
4. MCOP No.714 of 2014 was filed under Sections 165, 166 and 167 of the
Motor Vehicles Act and another claim petition in MCOP No.578 of 2015 was filed
under Sections 165 and 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 165 deals with the
Constitution of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Section 167 gives option
to the claimants to choose a Forum where they can claim compensation.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Mr.M.B.Raghavan
4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3267 of 2017 & 1335 of 2018
placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Surender Kumar Arora and another vs. Manoj Bisla and others reported in
(2012)4 SCC 552, Nishan Singh and others vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited reported in (2018)6 SCC 765 and Minu B.Mehta and another vs.
Balkrishna Ramachandra Nayan and another reported in (1997)2 SCC 441,
argued that unless a finding is given on negligence, the owner cannot be mulcted
with the liability.
6.This proposition is not disputed by the learned counsel for the claimants.
Taking note of the fact that the necessary parties have not been impleaded and no
evidence was let in by the claimants to prove the negligence. In order to meet the
ends of justice, we hereby set aside the Judgment and Award passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Court), Perambalur and the matters
are remanded to the Tribunal for de-novo trial. The claimants are at liberty to
amend the claim petitions, if they are so advised.
7.Considering the fact that these claim petitions arise out of the accident
5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3267 of 2017 & 1335 of 2018
that occurred in the year 2013, we request the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Principal District Judge), Perambalur to dispose of the claim petitions within one
year from the date of receipt of a copy of the records with this judgment. It is well
settled legal position that mere quoting of wrong provision will not dis-entitle the
claimants to get the relief.
8. With the above directions, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are
dispsoed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
[M.K.K.S.,J.] [V.S.G.,J.]
14.02.2022
skn
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order :Yes/No
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Principal District Judge), Perambalur.
2.The Section Officer,
6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3267 of 2017 & 1335 of 2018
V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.3267 of 2017 & 1335 of 2018
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
skn
COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A.Nos.3267 of 2017 & 1335 of 2018
and
C.M.P.Nos.20401 of 2017 & 10735 of 2018
14.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
