Madras High Court
Megala vs Sundaravel on 27 January, 2022
CMA No.2756 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2756 of 2021
1. Megala
2. Rajesh
3. Minor Deepan
4. Minor Prasad
(Minor petitioners 3 & 4 are represented
by their mother and natural guardian the
1st petitioner herein)
5. Letchumi ... Appellants
Vs.
1. Sundaravel
2. The National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Thiruvarur, Rep. By the Branch Manager,
Having his office at Thiruvarur Town,
Taluk, District & Munsif. ... Respondents
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.2756 of 2021
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, to allow the claim in MCOP No.8 of 2018 dated 21.12.2020, on the
file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge, Fast
Track Mahila Court), Nagapattinam.
For Appellant : Mr. K.Varadhakamaraj
For Respondents : Mr.D.Baskaran
JUDGMENT
The wholesale rejection of the claim petition under Section 163 A
of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the legal heirs of Murugesan, who died in a
Motor Accident that occurred on 09.09.2013, has resulted in this Appeal by
the said legal heirs.
2. The claimants sought for compensation of Rs.60,00,000/-
contending that the deceased was forced to go to the extreme left side of the
road because of oncoming vehicle which was driven in a rash and negligent
manner and as a result of it, he dashed against the Banyan Tree. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.2756 of 2021
accident resulted in his death. Therefore, according to the claimants, since
Murugesan is a third party, he would be entitled to compensation under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
3. The claim was resisted by the Insurance Company contending
that the accident was caused due to the negligence of Murugesan and he
being a borrower and rider of the vehicle cannot be treated as a third party.
Even assuming he could be treated as a third party, the said Murugesan did
not have a valid driving license and therefore, he is not entitled to
compensation even under the Personal Accident cover that is available to the
owner of the vehicle.
4. The Tribunal upon examination of the evidence on record found
that the deceased was riding a borrowed two wheeler, which belonged to one
Sundaravel, it was also found that the deceased did not have a valid driving
license. In view of the above factual situation, the Tribunal held that though
he could be treated as a person, who had stepped into the shoes of the owner
and would be entitled to the fixed compensation under the Personal Accident
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.2756 of 2021
Cover, since he was driving the vehicle without a valid driving license, he
would not be entitled to that Personal Accident Cover also. On such finding,
the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.
5. Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants would contend that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi and another v. United India Insurance
Company and others, reported in 2020 (1) TNMAC 1, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court had held that a person, who had borrowed the vehicle of
another, steps into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle and therefore, he
would be entitled to the limited liability under Personal Accident Cover
which is Rs.1,00,000/-.
6. The Original Petition out of which the case before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court arose was filed under Section 163A and the Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. When that was challenged before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, The Hon’ble Supreme Court pointed out that the
Tribunal could not have granted Rs.5,00,000/-, but as a person stepping into
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.2756 of 2021
the shoes of the owner, the borrower of the vehicle would be entitled to
Rs.1,00,000/- under the Personal Accident Cover. Even assuming that the
judgment to be treated as a precedent for treating a borrower of the vehicle
as a person stepping into the shoes of the owner and giving him the benefit
of the Personal Accident Cover. It should be shown that the claimant or the
deceased would be entitled to that Personal Accident Cover even otherwise
also, that is there was no violation of policy condition on his side.
7. The Tribunal in this case had recorded a categorical finding that
the deceased had no valid license. Therefore, there is a violation of policy
condition which exonerates the Insurance Company from its liability to
honour the award. Therefore, even if he is treated as the owner for the
purposes of availing the benefit of the Personal Accident Cover, since the
action of the claimant was in violation of the policy condition, I do not think,
the Tribunal could be faulted for having dismissed the claim petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.2756 of 2021
8. I therefore see no merit in the Appeal, the Appeal is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs in the appeal.
27.01.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non Speaking order
jv
To
1. The Additional District Judge,
Fast Track Mahila Court,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Nagapattinam.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.2756 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
jv
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2756 of 2021
27.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
