Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Pappanan on 25 August, 2023
CMA.No.1173 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 25.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CMA.No.1173 of 2023
and CMP No.11566 of 2023
The Branch Manager,
Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited,
Ground Floor, Sundaram Towers,
Dare House, No.45 & 46 Whites Road,
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Pappanan
2.M/s.KS Logistics,
Saravanan Tyres Building,
Near New ATC Depot, Bhavani Main Road,
Sankari Taluk, Salem District 637 301. ... Respondents
Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated
24.11.2022 and made in M.C.O.P.No.618 of 2020 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri.
For Petitioner : Ms.Shuwakitha C
for Mr.Sharath Chandran
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1173 of 2023
For Respondent : Notice served – no appearance
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company praying
for setting aside the award of the tribunal.
2. The 1st respondent herein filed the claim petition stating that the
driver of the lorry belonging to the 2nd respondent herein insured with the
appellant-Insurance Company, due to his negligent act had caused damage
to an electric post and a mercury lamp on 17.12.2019 at about 3.20pm
3. The 2nd respondent remained exparte before the tribunal
4. The appellant-Insurance Company filed the counter stating that the
1st respondent is not the owner of the electric pole and the mercury lamp and
hence, has no locus to maintain the claim petition; that the property belongs
to the Government and hence, no compensation can be paid to the 1st
respondent herein and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1173 of 2023
5. The 1st respondent herein/claimant examined himself as PW1 and
marked eleven documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. The appellant-Insurance
Company did not examine any witness or file any document.
6. The Tribunal after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence held that the accident occured due to the rash and negligent act of the
driver of the lorry belonging to the 2nd respondent and directed the appellant-
Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.7,96,000/- as compensation to the 1st
respondent-claimant. Aggrieved over the said award, the appellant-Insurance
Company has preferred the instant appeal.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company
submitted that a claim petition for damage to any property can be
maintained only by its owner; that admittedly, the 1st respondent was only a
contractor, who had erected the electric pole and fixed the lamp, based on
the Work Contract issued by the Block Development Officer at Shoolagiri
in Krishnagiri District. The learned counsel relied upon Ex.P11 to establish
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1173 of 2023
the said fact.
8. The learned counsel also relied upon the following judgments in
support of her submission that the claim petition can be maintained only by
the owner of the property for the damage caused to the property.
1. Suba Transport Co. and another Vs.
Phiroze Sethane Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1993 MLJ 182.
2.Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs.
Rao & Brothers and Others reported in 2019 ACJ 162.
3.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.
Ltd., Vs C.Diwakar and Others reported in 2020 SCC
Online Mad 5453.
9. The above case was listed on 23.08.2023. Though the respondents
were served and their names were printed in the cause list, there was no
representation for the respondents. Again the matter was listed today under
the caption 'for orders'. Even today, there is no representation for the
respondents.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1173 of 2023
and perused the materials available on record.
11. The only question involved in the instant appeal is whether the
claim petition filed by the 1st respondent is maintainable?
12. On perusal of records, it is seen that the 1 st respondent/claimant
herein is a Contractor, who had erected the electric pole and fixed the lamp,
based on the contract awarded by the Block Development Officer,
Shoolagiri. Ex.P11, is the document through which the contract was
awarded to the 1st respondent/claimant. Therefore, it is clear that the
property belongs to the Government. The 1st respondent, therefore, cannot
maintain the claim petition, as the property does not belong to him. There is
nothing on record to show that the 1st respondent had suffered any loss on
account of the damage caused to the Government property. Therefore, this
Court is of the view that the claim petition of the 1st respondent ought not to
have been entertained by the tribunal.
13. In this regard, it would be useful to refer to the observation of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1173 of 2023
Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs C.Diwakar and
Others reported in 2020 SCC Online Mad 5453, wherein this Court has
observed as under:
“10.The tribunal has failed to assign any reason how the claim
petition by the carrier for loss of goods is maintainable contrary to
Section 166(1) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, when admittedly the
claimant is not the owner of the goods. The Tribunal after referring
Section 165(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act had held that the goods in the
transit entrusted to the carrier has to be considered as goods of the third
party. Having held so, it ought to have dismissed the claim for the loss
of goods for want of locus-standi, since the owner of the goods alone is
competent to file claim petition under Section 166(1)(b) of the Motor
Vehicles Act.”
14. Further, it would be useful to refer to the observations of the
Karnataka High Court at paragraph No.9 in Manager, Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd., Vs. Rao & Brothers and Others reported in 2019 ACJ 162, which
is extracted hereunder:
“A bare perusal of the said section clearly reveals that it clearly
defines the persons who are entitled to file an application for
compensation arising out of an accident. According to Section 166(1)(b)
of the Act, it is only the owner of the property who is entitled to file an
application for compensation. Section 166(1)(b) does not empower an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1173 of 2023
agent of the owner to file an application.”
15. Therefore, for the aforesaid reason, this Court is of the view that
the award of the tribunal granting compensation to the 1st respondent is
liable to be set aside and accordingly, the judgment and decree dated
24.11.2022 and made in M.C.O.P.No.618 of 2020 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri, is set aside.
16. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The
appellant/Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the amount lying in
the credit of M.C.O.P.No.618 of 2020 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri, if they have deposited any
amount. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
25.08.2023
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking order: Yes/ No
ars/gba
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1173 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1173 of 2023
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
ars
To
1.The Special Sub Court,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Krishnagiri.
2.The Section Officer
VR Section
High Court of Madras, Chennai – 600 104.
CMA.No.1173 of 2023
25.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
