Madras High Court
The Manager vs Panneer Selvam on 12 January, 2022
C.R.P.(MD) No.2126 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.R.P(MD)No.2126 of 2012
and
M.P(MD) No.1 of 2012
The Manager,
National Insurance Company Ltd.,
63, Rasi Plaza,
West Pradhakshnam Road,
Karur. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Panneer Selvam
2.Palanivel ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the judgment and decree dated
14.12.2010 made in MCOP.No.78 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Additional Subordinate Judge, Karur.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Murugesaan
For R1 : No appearance
_________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.2126 of 2012
ORDER
The insurance company has challenged the award of Rs.8,000/-
with the interest at 7.5% from the date of filing of the petition, till
realization with cost.
2.The facts in brief are as follows:-
(i) The first respondent herein, who is the the claimant before the
Tribunal has filed MCOP No. 18 of 2008 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Additonal Subordinate Judg), Karur, against
the second respondent, owner of the offending vehicle and the revision
petitioner claiming compensation in respect of a road traffic accident that
occurred on 03.11.2007. It was the first respondent contention that on
03.11.2007 at about 8.15 p.m., he was riding the Hero Splendor Motor
Cycle bearing Registration No.TN-D-4072 with a pillion rider
Chinnaponnu and was travelling from Karur to Madurai on the NH7
Road on a south-north direction. When the vehicle near the Sukkaliyur
check post a rider of a TVS XL Super Motorcycle bearing Registration
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.2126 of 2012
No.TN-47-D-7151 came from the east to the west and suddenly crossed
the road in a rash and negligence manner without observing road rules.
The vehicle hit the first respondent's vehicle, as a result of which, both
the first respondent and his pillion rider were thrown off and the first
respondent sustained grievous fracture to his hands and legs.
Chinnaponnu sustained very grievous injuries and ultimately, succumbed
to her injuries. The first respondent had therefore filed the claim petition
impugned before the Court claiming a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs with
interest at 12 % per annum and cost.
(ii) The revision petitioner filed a counter inter alia contenting that
the first respondent was the one who had driven his vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and had consequently lost control and came in contact
with the second respondent's TVS XLS Super Motor Cycle causing the
accident. The revision petitioner had also pleaded that the first
respondent has not proved the basis for his claim. The revision petitioner
also contended that the driver of the the second respondent's vehicle did
not possess a valid driving licence and consequently, the revision
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.2126 of 2012
petitioner was not bound to indemnify their insured the second
respondent as there is a violation of the policy conditions.
(iii) The Tribunal below after considering the evidence on record
held that it was the driver of the TVS XL S Super Motor Cycle bearing
Registration No.TN-47-D-7151 who was negligent, taking into account
Ex.P1-FIR and Ex.P5-Charge Sheet. As regards the compensation due to
the first respondent, the tribunal taking note of the injuries, awarded a
compensation of Rs.8,000/- and held the revision petitioner and the
second respondent to be jointly and severally liable.
3.Challenging the award, the revision petitioner has approached
this Court. The only ground on which the revision has been filed is that
the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid licence and
therefore, since it is a violation of the policy condition, the revision
petitioner cannot be made liable. The learned counsel for the revision
petitioner would also address the very same argument.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.2126 of 2012
4.Heard the learned counsel and perused the records. The first
respondent, though served, has not appeared before this Court either in
person or through pleader.
5.The revision petitioner seeks to set aside the award on the
ground that the second respondent had violated the policy condition by
permitting a person who was not having a valid license to ride the
vehicle and therefore, there was no obligation on the part of the revision
petitioner to indemnify the second respondent and consequently,
compensate the revision petitioner. However, the revision petitioner has
not proved the same either by summoning the driver of the second
respondent's vehicle or by summoning the Licensing Authorities,
particularly, where the details would have been collected by the police
who have charge sheet the driver of the vehicle as evidenced by Ex.P5.
The Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation making the revision
petitioner and the second respondent jointly and severally liable.
Therefore, no case has been made out by the revision petitioner and
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.2126 of 2012
consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.01.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
cp
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may
be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To:-
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Additional Subordinate Judge,
Karur.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD) No.2126 of 2012
P.T.ASHA, J.
cp
C.R.P(MD)No.2126 of 2012
12.01.2022
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
