Madras High Court
Reliance General Insurance ... vs Minor Mariya Jerosilin @ Jeeva on 8 March, 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
C.M.A(MD)Nos.551 of 2020 and 260 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.5770 of 2020 and 2192 of 2021
C.M.A(MD)No.551 of 2020
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
through its Branch Manager,
D.No.10/4/4/,Second Floor,
Thaha Plaza, South Bypas Road,
Vannarapettai,
Tirunelveli – 627 003. :Appellant/Second respondent
.vs.
1.Minor Mariya Jerosilin @ Jeeva
Daughter of Sesu,
represented by her father, next friend and the
first Respondent herein Sesu.: Ist Respondent/Petitioners
2.Bevin Raj :2nd Respondent/Ist Respondent
C.M.A(MD)No.260 of 2021
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
through its Branch Manager,
D.No.10/4/4/,Second Floor,
Thaha Plaza, South Bypas Road,
Vannarapettai,
Tirunelveli – 627 003. :Appellant/Second respondent
.vs.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1.Michael Arokiyam
2.Jesu
3.Saveriyar Adimai
4.Gnanasoundari :Respondents 1 to 5/Petitioners
5.Backiyaseeli
6.Bevin Raj :Respondent No.6/ Respondent No.1
PRAYER in C.M.A(MD)No.551 of 2020: Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against
the award and decree made in M.C.O.P.Nos.136 of 2017, dated
12.09.2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/The
Principal District Judge of Ramanathapuram insofar as the liability
to pay compensation awarded is concerned.
PRAYER in C.M.A(MD)No.260 of 2021: Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against
the award and decree made in M.C.O.P.Nos.137 of 2017, dated
12.09.2019, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/The
Principal District Judge of Ramanathapuram insofar as the liability
to pay compensation and the quantum of compensation awarded
are concerned.
C.M.A(MD)No.551 of 2020
For Appellant :Mr.V.Sakthivel
For Respondent-1 :No appeareance
For Respondent-2 :Mr.S.Krishnan
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.551 of 2020
For Appellant :Mr.V.Sakthivel
For Respondents :Mr.S.Krishnan
1 to 5
For Respondent-6 :No appearance
COMMON JUDGMENT
************************
Both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are arising out of a
common judgment rendered in M.C.O.P.Nos.136 and 137 of 2017.
2.Insurance Company is the appellant herein. The
respondents herein have filed the respective M.C.O.P.Nos.136 and
137 of 2017 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/The
Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram, claiming compensation
for the injuries/death occurred in the road traffic accident.
3.In order to substantiate that the driver of the offending
vehicle is negligent, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined. Ex.P1 to
Ex.P21 were marked. The Doctor, who has given treatment for the
claimant in C.M.A.NO.136 of 2017 was examined as P.W.3 and also
marked discharge summary and disability certificate and also
Nurse Record Book(Ex.P19 to Ex.P21).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.The Insurance Company has entered appearance and has
filed a counter statement specifically disputing the fact that the
driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the valid driving
licence to drive the share auto. The owner of the vehicle Ashok
filed a written statement disputing the manner of accident. The
Tribunal, based upon the oral and documentary evidence, has come
to the conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the share auto and
accordingly, fixed the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company.
A specific plea was taken that the driver of the share auto does
not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident and in this
regard, on Court summons, R.W.1-Chidambaram, staff from RTO
Office was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R1 was marked to show the
conditions of the policy. R.W.2-Staff from the Insurance Company
was examined as R.W.2 and Ex.R2 policy copy was marked. It
remains to be stated that the owner of the vehicle though filed
written statement, has not produced the driving licence of the
driver of the offending vehicle before the Tribunal.
5.The Tribunal, is of the view that the burden of proof is on
the Insurance Company and accordingly, in his opinion, has held
that the appellant/Insurance Company is jointly and severally to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
pay the compensation to the claimant/s. Hence the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeals.
6.On the quantum of compensation, I find that the notional
income, multiplier, future prospects, deduction and the rate of
interest are properly assessed and awarded and the sole point for
consideration that arose for consideration is whether the
appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation or not?
7.Admittedly, the owner of the vehicle has entered
appearance and he has not taken any steps to produce the driving
licence of the driver of the share auto. Notice to produce the
driving licence is of no avail and hence, this Court holds that when
the owner of the vehicle has entered appearance and notice for
production of the document was also served, because of his non
appearance before the Tribunal and failure to produce the
document, adverse inference shall be taken against the owner of
the vehicle. Hence following the Ram Killadi's case, the
appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to
the claimants and however in view of several judicial
pronouncements and hence ''pay and recovery'' is ordered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.In view of the above discussion, the award passed by the
Tribunal in M.C.O.P.Nos.136 and 137 of 2017, dated 12.09.2019
shall stand modified as one of ''pay and recovery'' by the
appellant/Insurance Company. In all other aspects regarding
quantum of compensation, the order passed by the Tribunal is
sustained.
9.The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed to the extent
as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
08.03.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsn
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/
The Principal District Judge
Ramanathapuram
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.,J.
vsn
COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)Nos.551 of 2020 and
260 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.5770 of 2020 and
2192 of 2021
08.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
