Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Danam on 15 September, 2022
C.M.A.(MD)No.1414 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
C.M.A.(MD)No.1414 of 2016
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.11839 of 2018 and 4144 of 2020
The Branch Manager,
The National Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Sowkarpet,
Chennai. .. Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.Danam
2.Vembadi
3.V.Sarusasi .. Respondents/Petitioners
4.A.Sakthivel .. Respondent/1st Respondent
[R3-Cause title amended
vide Court order dated
30.08.2018 made in
CMP(MD).7578/2018 by
PSNJ&TKJ]
_______________
Page Nos. 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1414 of 2016
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree, dated
05.02.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No.52 of 2012, on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Kulithalai.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj
JUDGMENT
J.NISHA BANU, J.
and
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
This appeal has been filed by the National Insurance Company
Limited against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(MACT), Kulithalai, whereby the Tribunal granted compensation to the
tune of Rs.23,80,000/- in favour of the claimants. The case of the
claimants is that on 02.03.2011, at about 8.15 p.m. the deceased was
proceeding in his two wheeler in the GNT road, Vadakarai junction and
at that point of time, the driver of the lorry who was proceeding from
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1414 of 2016
north to south, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he
dashed the two wheeler driven by the deceased. As a result, the deceased
sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The deceased
was aged about 26 years at the time of his demise.
2. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances of
the case and on appreciating the evidence available on record, came to a
conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent
driving of the lorry. As a consequence, considering the income and age
of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the compensation under various
heads and awarded a total compensation of Rs.23,80,000/-. Aggrieved
by the same, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal.
3. Heard Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant/Insurance Company and Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1414 of 2016
4. The main ground that was raised by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company is that the driver of the
insured vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license and
hence, it was contended that the liability cannot be fastened against the
Insurance Company. A faint attempt was also made questioning the
compensation granted by the Tribunal on the ground that it is slightly on
the higher side.
5. The main ground that was raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant pertains to the driver of the lorry not having a batch for driving
the lorry as mandated by the Rules and Regulations framed under the
Motor Vehicles Act.
6. The issue raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is no
longer res integra and the law is now well settled in Mukund Dewangan
v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 SC
3668. The main issue that was considered in this decision is as to
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1414 of 2016
whether a driver who is having a license to drive light motor vehicle and
is driving a transport vehicle of that class, is required additionally to
obtain an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle which does not
exceed 7500 Kgs. It is only in cases of this nature, there is a requirement
to have a batch. The Apex Court held that a driver holding a light motor
vehicle license can drive all vehicles of class including transport vehicles
and no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles.
7. In view of the above judgment, the main ground that has been
raised in this appeal has to fail. Insofar as the amount of compensation
granted by the Tribunal, this Court finds it to be just and reasonable and
there is no ground to interfere with the same.
8. In the result,
(i) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No Costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1414 of 2016
(ii) This Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the
entire award amount with proportionate interest and costs. This condition
has been complied with by the Insurance Company. In view of the same,
it is left open to the claimants to withdraw the compensation amount
along with the accrued interest in the manner indicated in the award
passed by the Tribunal.
[J.N.B., J.] [N.A.V., J.]
15.09.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
PJL
To
The Subordinate Judge/
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Kulithalai.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.1414 of 2016
J.NISHA BANU,J.
and
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
PJL
C.M.A.(MD)No.1414 of 2016
15.09.2022
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
