Madras High Court
The Divisional Manager vs G.Sundarapandiyan on 21 January, 2022
CMA No.549 of 2021
and CMP No.3469 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.549 of 2021
and CMP No. 3469 of 2021
The Divisional Manager,
The United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Office at No.36, Katpadi Road,
Gandhi Nagar, Vellore. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. G.Sundarapandiyan
2. P.Venkatesan ... Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, to set aside the award and decree dated 12.03.2019 made in MCOP
No.184 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special
Subordinate Judge), Tirupattur.
For Appellant : Mr. D. Bhaskaran
For Respondents : No appearance
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.549 of 2021
and CMP No.3469 of 2021
JUDGMENT
Despite attempts, the respondents could not be served since they
had refused to receive the notice.
2. Aggrieved by the award of a sum of Rs.72,945/- towards
damages to the vehicle caused in the motor accident that occurred on
14.02.2015, the Insurance Company is on Appeal.
3. The claimant sought for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for
damages caused to goods vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 23 BX 9460.
This claim was resisted by the Insurance Company contending that the
claimant had not spent any amount towards repairs and that he has been
compensated by its own insurer and therefore, he is not entitled to claim
compensation against the respondent Insurance Company.
4. The Tribunal upon examination of the evidence reached a
definite conclusion that the claimant has not proved that he has spent the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.549 of 2021
and CMP No.3469 of 2021
money for repairing the vehicle. Ex.P7 filed by the claimant was rejected by
the Tribunal as it is only an estimate of repairs. The Tribunal recorded a
finding that the petitioner namely the owner of the vehicle would not be
entitled to claim compensation without proof of having incurred expenses for
repairing the vehicle. However, the Tribunal held that the Motor Vehicles
Act being a welfare legislation, the Tribunal has a duty to balance the
welfare of the claimant and that of the Insurance Company.
5. In order to maintain the welfare of the claimant, the Tribunal
directed the Insurance Company to deposit the sum of Rs.72,945/- with
interest at 7.5% and imposed a condition on the claimant to furnish proof of
having spent the money for repair of the vehicle to enable him to withdraw.
6. I have no doubt in my mind that the Tribunal exceeded its
jurisdiction in doing so. Motor Vehicles Act is a legislation which enables
compensation to be paid for damages caused or expenses incurred to rectify
the damages caused. It cannot be said to be a welfare legislation. The
Insurance Companies are made liable under a contract of insurance and they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.549 of 2021
and CMP No.3469 of 2021
are not expected to do charity. The award of the Tribunal exactly requires the
Insurance Company to do charity.
7. I have no hesitation in setting aside the award. The Appeal is
allowed, the award is set aside, MCOP No.184 of 2015 will stand dismissed.
The Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by
it. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
21.01.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes
speaking order/Non Speaking order
jv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.549 of 2021
and CMP No.3469 of 2021
To
1. The Special Sub Judge,
Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal,
Tirupattur.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.549 of 2021
and CMP No.3469 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
jv
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.549 of 2021
and CMP No. 3469 of 2021
21.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
