Madras High Court
National Insurance Company ... vs C.Sekar ... 1St on 16 June, 2022
C.M.A.(MD)No.499 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 16.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI
C.M.A.(MD)No.499 of 2012
and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2012
National Insurance Company Limited,
1st Floor, Jerome Building,
Fort Station Road,
Trichy – 620 002. .. Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.C.Sekar ... 1st respondent / petitioner
2.G.Chandrakanthan ... 2nd respondent / 1st respondent
3.P.S.Saravanan ... 3rd Respondent / 3rd respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section173 of Motor
vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award made in M.C.O.P.No. 71
of 2007, dated 09.10.2009, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal – Sub Court, Kulithalai.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Sivaraman
For Respondents : No appearance
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.499 of 2012
JUDGMENT
This Appeal is filed against the award made in M.C.O.P.No. 71 of
2007, dated 09.10.2009, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
– Sub Court, Kulithalai. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the
first respondent herein is the claimant, the second respondent herein is the
first respondent and the third respondent herein is the third respondent in the
main M.C.O.P petition.
2. Brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No. 71 of 2007,
is as follows:
On 09.11.2006 at about 9.40 pm., the petitioner was walking along
the Karur-Trichy main road, near Priya Hospital, at that time, a motorcycle
bearing Registration No.TN-47-M-7209 was driven by a rider in a rash and
negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner from behind and caused him
injuries. The petitioner sustained injuries and was admitted as inpatient and
he sustained permanent disability. The petitioner claimed a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.499 of 2012
3. Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent in
M.C.O.P.No. 71 of 2007, is as follows:
The mode of the accident is denied. The rider of the two wheeler
ride the vehicle in a careful and cautious manner along the left side of the
road. It was the petitioner, who suddenly crossed the road and the petitioner
is responsible for the accident. The rider of the two wheeler was not having
valid driving licence, at the time of accident. The petitioner has to prove that
the third respondent was the erstwhile owner of the vehicle. Since the third
respondent was not the owner of the vehicle, at the time of accident, the
second respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The amount claimed is
excessive. The age, profession, income of the petitioner are denied.
4. On the side of the claimant, 2 witnesses were examined and 5
documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, 2 witnesses were
examined and 7 documents were marked. After considering both sides, the
Tribunal totally awarded a sum of Rs.86,500/- to be paid by the second
respondent. Against the order, the appellant / Insurance Company has filed
this appeal on the following grounds:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.499 of 2012
The Tribunal has failed to consider that the rider of the vehicle –
Chandrakanthan was not having valid driving licence, at the time of
accident. The Tribunal failed to consider this aspect while deciding the case.
From the evidence of R.W.2, who is an official from R.T.O's office and from
Ex.R4, it was well established that the rider did not have driving licence to
drive two wheeler. The Tribunal has failed to know that in the petition, the
third respondent was only mentioned as erstwhile owner and the first
respondent was mentioned as the owner cum driver of the vehicle and in the
Motor Vehicle Inspector's report as well as in the charge sheet, the first
respondent was mentioned as the owner cum driver and the award is
excessive.
5. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the appellant has
proved that the rider of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence, at
the time of accident and that it is admitted that the third respondent is not the
owner of the vehicle at the time of accident and prayed the order of the
Tribunal is to be set aside.
6. From the evidence of R.W.2, it is clear that the first respondent
was not having driving licence, to drive two wheeler. The first respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.499 of 2012
has obtained driving licence only to drive light motor vehicle and heavy
motor vehicle but, not a two wheeler.
7. Though in the petition, it was mentioned that the first
respondent was the owner cum driver at the time of accident, the ownership
was not transferred to the name of the first respondent. The Insurance goes
along with the vehicle and hence, who ever be the owner, the appellant /
Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation.
8. In view of the above discussion, it is decided that the Insurance
Company has to pay the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal
and the Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the amount from the
owner of the vehicle. This Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
9. The appellant herein / Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation of Rs.86,500/- with accrued interest at the rate of 7.5% pa.,
and with costs within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order, if not already deposited. On such deposit being made, the
Tribunal may permit the claimant to withdraw the entire award amount, on
filing of proper petition before the Tribunal, less any amount, if already
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.499 of 2012
withdrawn by him. The claimant is not entitled for interest for the default
period, if there is any. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
16.06.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Ls
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
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Sub Court,
Kulithalai.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.499 of 2012
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.499 of 2012
R. THARANI, J.
Ls
Judgment made in
C.M.A.(MD)No.499 of 2012
16.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
