Parthasarathy vs The Branch Manager
2023 Latest Caselaw 3838 Mad

                                                                                   C.M.A.(MD)No.687 of 2022


                             BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED : 05.04.2023

                                                        CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

                                                 C.M.A.(MD)No.687 of 2022


                Parthasarathy                                        ...Appellant / Claimant


                                                       Vs.
                1.The Branch Manager,
                  ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company,
                  at 2nd and 3rd Floor, Chotabhai Center,
                  14, Nungambakkam High Road,
                  Chennai-34.

                2.Charles
                3.Sadasivam                                    ... Respondents / Respondents


                PRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
                Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment dated 28.08.2019 passed in
                M.C.O.P.No.81 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub
                Judge), Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.


                                        For Appellant    : Mr.C.Suresh Kannan
                                        For R1           : Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh




                1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                        C.M.A.(MD)No.687 of 2022




                                                          JUDGMENT

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed, challenging the

judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Sivakasi,

Virudhunagar District in M.C.O.P.No.81 of 2015, dated 28.08.2019, dismissing

the claim petition filed by the appellant.

2.It is the case of the appellant / claimant that on 04.11.2023, when the

driver of the petitioner / 3rd respondent drew the car bearing Registration

No.TN-67-AJ-7119 from Chennai to Trichy, an omni bus proceeding in front of

the car without any indication stopped the vehicle. Hence, the driver of the car /

3rd respondent in order to avoid the accident applied break. However, the car hit

the bus lightly. Due to which, the car of the petitioner as well as the bus of the

State Corporation was damaged and two passengers travelling in the bus and the

driver of the car / 3rd respondent sustained injuries. Hence, claiming compensation

for the damages to the car, the claim petition was filed.

3.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, he himself was

examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 were marked. On the side of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.687 of 2022

respondents, one Sathish Kumar, Law Officer of the 1st respondent Insurance

Company was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 were marked.

4.The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence

adduced by both sides, had dismissed the claim petition mainly on the ground that

the claim made by the petitioner before the Insurance Company seeking for

damages has already been repudiated and since the car of the claimant was insured

with the Insurance Company at the time of accident, he cannot claim

compensation as a third party to his own vehcile. Challenging the same, the

present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed.

5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials

available on record carefully.

6.It is an undisputed fact that the claim of the petitioner, claiming

damages to the vehicle, had already been rejected by the Insurance Company on

the ground that the driver of the car / 3rd respondent was influenced by alcohol.

When the claim itself had already been rejected by the 1st respondent / Insurance

Company, this Court is of the view that the owner of the vehicle can never be

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.687 of 2022

termed to be a third party and he is the insured. Therefore, the remedy of the

petitioner is only to challenge the repudiation either before the Consumer Forum

or before the Civil Court concerned.

7.Such view of the matter, I do not find any merits in this appeal.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellant to challenge the

repudiation either before the Consumer Forum or before the Civil Court

concerned.

8.Considering the fact that he was bona fidely pursuing his remedy

before the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal and before this Court, the period that

has been spent in different forum bona fidely is excluded for the purpose of

reckoning limitation. In the event of the appellant is able to succeed, the interest

for the interregnum period, in which he was pursuing the remedy before two

different forum, may be waived. No costs.

05.04.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ta

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.687 of 2022

To

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Sub Judge, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar.

2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.687 of 2022

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

ta

C.M.A.(MD)No.687 of 2022

05.04.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis