Madras High Court
K.Padma vs The Branch Manager on 11 January, 2022
Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.5 of 2022
in C.M.A.(MD).No.827 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
Review Application (MD).No.5 of 2022
in
C.M.A.(MD).No.827 of 2013
1.K.Padma
2.Kannan
3.Silambarasan .. Review Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
T.S.No.4132, Keela Raja Veethi,
Pudukkottai & District.
2.Sathyamoorthy .. Respondents
Prayer: This Review Petition is filed under Order XLVII, Rule 1 & Section 114 of
Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2018 made in
C.M.A.(MD).No.827 of 2013.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.5 of 2022
in C.M.A.(MD).No.827 of 2013
For Review Petitioners : Mr.R.Paranjothi
For R1 : Mr.J.S.Murali
ORDER
(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing”)
This Review Petition is filed to review the judgment and decree dated
29.10.2018 made in C.M.A.(MD).No.827 of 2013.
2.According to petitioners, at the time of hearing of the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal, the subsequent judgment of Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported
in 2018 ACJ 2161 [Shivaji and another Vs. Divisional Manager, United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., and others] and AIR 2017 SC 5710, [United India Insurance
Co. Ltd., Vs. Sunil Kumar and another]; [Shivaji and another Vs. Divisional
Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and others] were not brought to the
notice of the Court. The claim petition cannot be dismissed for the negligence of
the claimant. The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act
can be converted to Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act and relief can be
granted to the victim. It is not brought to this Court that there is no evidence that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.5 of 2022
in C.M.A.(MD).No.827 of 2013
the victim was negligent in riding the vehicle and prayed for re-considering the
judgment passed in C.M.A.(MD).No.827 of 2013.
3.Heard Mr.R.Paranjothi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as
well as Mr.J.S.Murali, leanred counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and perused
the entire materials on record.
4.It is well settled that Review Petition is not an appeal and the review
petitioner cannot re-argue the case. Only when there is an error, the judgment can
be re-considered. In the present case, the Tribunal has held that accident has
occurred due to the negligence of the original claimant Eswaran, rider of the
motorcycle. He has pleaded guilty and paid fine in the criminal proceedings. The
review petitioners have not challenged the said portion of the award of the Tribunal
and therefore, it is not open to the review petitioners to contend that there is no
evidence that victim was negligent. It is no doubt true that Motor Vehicles Act is
beneficial legislation and claimant must enjoy the fruits of the award. The claim
petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act can be converted as
claim petition filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Even in the
claim petition filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles act, a tort feasor is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.5 of 2022
in C.M.A.(MD).No.827 of 2013
not entitled to compensation against the owner and insurer of the vehicle in which
he was riding.
5.As far as contention of the learned counsel appearing for the review
petitioners with regard to subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported
in AIR 2017 SC 5710, [United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Sunil Kumar and
another] & 2018 ACJ 2161 [Shivaji and another Vs. Divisional Manager, United
India Insurance Co. Ltd., and others] is concerned, after the judgments relied on
by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
judgment reported in 2020 (1) TN MAC 1 (SC) [Ramkhiladi and another Vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and another], held that tort feasor is not entitled
to claim compensation against the owner or insurer of the motorcycle in which he
was riding.
6.In view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2020
(1) TNMAC 1 (SC) cited supra, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners is without merits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.5 of 2022
in C.M.A.(MD).No.827 of 2013
7.In view of the above, this Review Petition is dismissed. No costs.
11.01.2022
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
V.M.VELUMANI, J.,
krk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.5 of 2022
in C.M.A.(MD).No.827 of 2013
Review Application (MD).No.5 of 2022
in C.M.A.(MD).No.827 of 2013
11.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
