Madras High Court
The New India Assurance Company ... vs Rani on 16 June, 2022
C.M.A.No.497 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.M.A.No.497 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.3656 of 2022
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
No.128A, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Street,
Villupuram ...Appellant
Vs.
1. Rani
2. Muniyan
3. Minor Meena
4. Minor Nehru
Minors are represented by their natural
guardian/mother Rani, the first respondent herein.
5. Parthasarathy ... Respondents
Prayer:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment
dated 30.11.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.208 of 2016 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Villupuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
C.M.A.No.497 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.Dhakshnamoorthy
For Respondents
1 and 2 : Mr.E.C.Ramesh
Respondents 3 and 4 : Rep by R1
For Respondent-5 : Served
JUDGMENT
The second respondent-Insurance Company before the Tribunal
has filed the appeal, challenging the Award passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Villupuram on the ground that
despite there being a violation of the policy conditions, the learned Judge
had not ordered pay and recovery against the fifth respondent/owner of
the offending vehicle.
2. Considering the limited scope, I am not extracting the facts
of the case in extenso. The fifth respondent owner of the vehicle insured
with the appellant though served have not entered appearance through
counsel nor appeared in person.
3. Mr.Dhakshnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-Insurance Company would submit that on a perusal of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.497 of 2022
Ex.A8-Motor Vehicle Inspection Report, they had come to know that the
driver of the offending vehicle had not produced his driving licence.
Therefore, they had addressed the letters to the first respondent as well as
the authorities to give the details of the driving licence. However, there
has been no response to their attempts. The Police Authorities have sent
a reply on 09.01.2017 and 06.02.2017 stating that they are unable to
produce the documents, since the matter is under enquiry. However,
even thereafter, the driving licence of the driver of the fifth respondent's
vehicle has not been produced. Ex.P18 would show that the fifth
respondent has not produced the driving licence of his vehicle. Further, it
is also seen that 3 people were travelling in the motorcycle. Therefore,
there is a clear case of the violation of the policy conditions as also the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal has not taken into
account the above factors and has simply directed the appellant-
Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount.
4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
appellant, since it is a violation of the policy conditions and taking into
account the judgment reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223 (New India
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.497 of 2022
Assurance Company Ltd -vs- Asha Rani and Others), the impugned
Award is modified by stating that the appellant-Insurance Company shall
pay the compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the
fifth respondent herein being owner of the vehicle. In other respects, the
Award of the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed to the above extent. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.06.2022
Index :Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
srn
To
1. The Principal District Judge, Salem
2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.497 of 2022
P.T.ASHA.J,
srn
C.M.A.No.497 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.3656 of 2022
16.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
