Madras High Court
G.Sandhiya vs Jamal Mansurali on 28 July, 2022
C.M.A.No.2825 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.M.A.No.2825 of 2021
1. G.Sandhiya
2. G.Monika
(As per Ex.P6 dated 01.08.2017
2nd petitioner aged 20 years and got
married)
3. P.Suresh
(3rd petitioner impleaded-As per amendment
order in M.P.No.2149 of 2017 dated 16.11.2017) .. Appellant
-Vs.-
1. Jamal Mansurali
2. TATA AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
No.1, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008 .. Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and judgment dated 26.09.2019 made
in M.C.O.P.No.2494 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (III Small Causes Court), Chennai.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2825 of 2021
For appellant ... Mr.K. Varadha Kamaraj
For Respondent-1 ... Mr.D.Abdullah
For Respondent-2 .... Mr.E.Rajadurai
for M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates
JUDGMENT
The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the
petitioners challenging the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (III Court of Small Causes, Chennai) in M.C.O.P.No.2494 of 2013,
in and by which, the claim petition had been dismissed against the second
respondent-Insurance Company on the ground that the vehicle did not
possess a valid insurance at the time of the accident and directing the first
respondent-owner of the vehicle to pay the entire compensation of a sum of
Rs. 12,35,200/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2825 of 2021
2. Today, when the matter was called, Mr.E.Rajadurai, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent-Insurance Company,
on instructions, would submit that the vehicle at the relevant point of time
had a valid insurance. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that there is no
valid insurance is erroneous and therefore, the order of the Tribunal
exonerating the second respondent-Insurance Company has to be set aside
and the second respondent be directed to pay the compensation for and on
behalf of the insured-first respondent.
3. Recording the above submission, the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is allowed. The second respondent-Insurance Company is directed to
pay the compensation of Rs. 12,35,200/- to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.2494
of 2013 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
claim petition till the date of deposit and costs as awarded by the Tribunal,
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. The said amount shall be apportioned amongst the claimants as
per the Award of the Tribunal. On such deposit being made, the claimants
are permitted to withdraw the award amount, along with proportionate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2825 of 2021
accrued interest and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if
any already withdrawn, by filing necessary application before the Tribunal.
In other respects, the Award of the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. There
shall be no order as to costs in the present appeal.
28.07.2022
srn
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(III Small Causes Court), Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2825 of 2021
P.T.ASHA.J
srn
C.M.A.No.2825 of 2021
28.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
