Madras High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Minor S.Vinoth on 7 September, 2022
C.M.P(MD) No.1208 of 2009
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
C.M.A(MD)No.1208 of 2009
and
M.P(MD) No.2 of 2009
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through its Divisional Manager,
D.O-II, Salai Road,
Thillai Road,
Trichirapalli-18. ... Appellant
vs.
1.Minor S.Vinoth
S/o.Sethuraman
rep. through his Mother & guardian
Mrs.Saraswathi
W/o.Sethuraman
2.C.Sethuraman ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, to set aside the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.46/07
dated 20.06.2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Subordinate Court), Kuzhithalai.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P(MD) No.1208 of 2009
For Appellant : Mr.S.Natarajan
For Respondents : No appearance
JUDGMENT
************
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed to set aside the judgment
and decree dated 20.06.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.46 of 2007 on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Court), Kuzhithalai.
2. Brief facts of the claim petition are as follows: -
On 09.11.2003 at 09.20 hours, the first respondent/claimant was
proceeding towards South Thillainagar Colony Main Road,
Tiruchirappalli. At that time, an Ambassador car bearing Registration
No.TAC-3040 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner dashed
against the claimant/first respondent. In the accident, the claimant had
sustained multiple grievous injuries all over his body. Immediately, he
was taken to Government Hospital, Tiruchirappalli, wherein he was
admitted as an inpatient and given treatment. He had undergone a major
operation and took medical treatment as an inpatient for a period of more
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P(MD) No.1208 of 2009
than eight days and thereafter, as an outpatient, he had taken treatment
for a period of three months, in the private hospital. Inspite of the best
medical treatment, the wound was not properly healed and he sustained
permanent disabilities. There is restriction of movements of his left
hand. According to the claimants, the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the car belonging to the second respondent was caused the
accident. Since the said offending car was insured with the
appellant/Insurance Company, the owner and the insurer are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation. Hence, the first
respondent/claimant filed the claim petition claiming compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/-.
3. The second respondent/owner of the vehicle remained absent
before the Tribunal and therefore, he was set exparte.
4.In the claim petition, the appellant/Insurance Company filed
their counter, wherein, they denied the averments made in the claim
petition. Further, in the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the claim
made by the first respondent/claimant is on the higher side.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P(MD) No.1208 of 2009
5.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, two witnesses
were examined as P.W.1 and P.W2 and eleven documents were marked as
Exs.P.1 to P.11. On the side of the appellant/Insurance company, two
witnesses were examined as R.W.1 and R.W2 and two documents were
marked as Exs.R1 and R2.
6.The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary
evidences and arguments made on either side, allowed the claim petition
and awarded a sum of Rs.66,850/- along with 7.5% interest per annum
as compensation to the claimant. Against which, the appellant/Insurance
Company has filed this present appeal.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
Company submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have
valid driving licence at the time of accident, it is a violation of the policy
conditions and hence, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to
pay compensation. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the
appellant/Insurance Company from paying the compensation as there
was a breach of policy conditions. But, the Tribunal has erroneously
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P(MD) No.1208 of 2009
directed the appellant/Insurance company to pay the entire compensation
to the claimant. Hence, the learned counsel prays for setting aside the
order of the Tribunal.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance
Company and perused the materials available on records. There is no
representation for the respondents.
9. It is evident from the records that the manner of the accident
and the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending
vehicle are not in dispute. On the question of liability, it is seen that, at
the time of the accident, the driver of the car has not possessed valid
driving licence. The law is now well settled that merely because the
driver of the vehicle has no valid driving licence at the time of the
accident, the Insurance Company cannot get rid of its liability, however,
after paying the compensation amount to the claimant, the Insurance
Company can recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle.
10.In view of the above fact, the order passed by the Tribunal
directing the Insurance Company to pay the award amount is liable to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P(MD) No.1208 of 2009
modified. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to pay the award
amount to the first respondent/claimant at the first instance and
thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the offending car.
11. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, no
arguments were advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Insurance Company and a perusal of the award also shows that
it is not on the higher side and the same is liable to be confirmed.
12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
The award and decree dated 20.06.2008 made in MCOP No.46 of 2007
on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Court),
Kuzhithalai, is modified. The quantum of compensation and the rate of
interest fixed by the Tribunal as 7.5% per annum are confirmed. The
Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount along with
accrued interest and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any,
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order at the first instance and thereafter, recover the same from the
insured. Since the claimant is the minor, the Tribunal is directed to
deposit the amount in any one of the nationalised banks, as fixed deposit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P(MD) No.1208 of 2009
under the Cumulative Deposit Scheme, till the minor attains the age of
major and the mother of the minor claimant, who is the guardian of the
minor claimant, is permitted to withdraw interest once in three months
directly from the bank. No costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
07.09.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
cp/skn
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Court),
Kuzhithalai.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P(MD) No.1208 of 2009
A.A.NAKKIRAN .,J.
cp/skn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)No.1208 of 2009
07.09.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
