Madras High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Ganesan (Died) on 8 December, 2023
Author: M. Dhandapani
Bench: M. Dhandapani
C.M.A.No.1708 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.12.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI
C.M.A.No.1708 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.12573 of 2020
The Divisional Manager,
M/s.The TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited,
'Samson Towers' II Floor,
No.403-L, Pantheon Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Appellant
Vs.
Ganesan (died)
1.Dhanamani
2.Senthilraja ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and judgment dated 09th March,
2020, passed in M.C.O.P.No.40 of 2017, by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, (Principal Subordinate Court), at Vridhachalam.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam
For Respondents : No appearance [R1]
Mr.L.Palanimuthu [R2]
*****
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1708 of 2020
JUDGEMENT
Challenging the award and decree passed by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, (Principal Subordinate Court), at Vridhachalam in
M.C.O.P.No.40 of 2017, dated 09.03.2020, the insurance company has
filed the present appeal.
2. As per the claim petition, on 09.02.2016 at about 9.30 a.m., when
the claimant was riding his vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-31-AV-8527, the
vehicle belonging to the first respondent insured with the second
respondent/insurance company bearing Reg.No.TN-31-BV-1163 driven by
its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the two-wheeler,
resulting in grievous injuries sustained by the claimant, for which, the
claimant had filed a claim petition claiming a compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- before the Tribunal.
3. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined one witness viz.,
P.W.1 and marked 8 documents viz., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. No witnesses were
examined nor any documents were marked on the side of the second
respondent/insurance company. After adjudication, the Tribunal by its
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
award dated 09.03.2020 awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.94,810/-
with an interest of 7.5% p.a., by ordering pay and recovery. Aggrieved by
the same, the insurance company has preferred the present appeal.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance
company submitted that, at the relevant point of time, on 09.02.2010, there
was no valid policy issued by the appellant and the policy has came to be
issued subsequently on 12.21 hours and therefore, the accident having
occurred proceeding the issuance of the policy, the appellant is not liable
to pay compensation. It is the further submission of the learned counsel
that the driver of the second respondent was not possessed of a valid
driving licence to drive the heavy duty motor vehicle and the said fact
having been proved through Ex.P.4, however, without appreciating the
same, the Tribunal had directed the appellant to pay the compensation and
thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle/second
respondent, which is erroneous and therefore, the award deserves to be
interfered with.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent/claimant submitted that, by considering all the materials on
records, the Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of the claimant
under various heads, which are just and reasonable and the same does not
require any interference. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent and also
perused the materials available on record.
7. A perusal of the materials available on records reveals that the
policy/Ex.P.3, has been covering the vehicle from 09.02.2016 to
08.02.2017. The Tribunal has held that, at the time of accident, the vehicle
was fully covered. A perusal of the policy/Ex.P.3 reveals that the coverage
is for the aforesaid period and it is not spelt out that the coverage will start
only after 12.21 hours on 09.02.2016. That being the case, the validity of
the policy cannot be questioned and the vehicle of the second respondent
was having a valid policy at that particular time and therefore, the
appellant is not liable to compensate the claimant. However, Ex.P.4 is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, which shows that the vehicle of the
second respondent was fit and it was duly insured with the appellant.
However, through Ex.P.4, it is evidenced that the driver of the second
respondent was not possessed of a driving licence to drive the heavy duty
motor vehicle. Such a driving licence was also not produced by the second
respondent, when the second respondent has permitted his driver to drive
the vehicle, which requires possession of heavy duty motor vehicle licence
and in the absence of said licence being placed before the Tribunal, the
Tribunal has rightly passed the order absolving the liability of the insurer
to pay compensation. However, considering the benevolent nature of the
MV Act has directed the appellant/insurer to first pay the compensation to
the claimant and thereafter, to recover the same from the second
respondent/owner of the vehicle. The said order passed by the Tribunal is
based on the ratio laid down by this Court and the Apex Court in a catena
of decisions, which cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable and
therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be sustained.
8. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the
decree and judgment passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(Principal Subordinate Court) at Vridhachalam in M.C.O.P.No.40 of 2017
dated 09.03.2020 is confirmed. The appellant/insurance company is
directed to deposit the award amount as awarded by the Tribunal to the
credit of M.C.O.P.No.40 of 2017 along with interest at the rate of 7.5%
per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs
as awarded by the Tribunal, less, the amount, if any already deposited,
within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer
the said amount directly to the bank account of the first
respondent/claimant through RTGS within a period of two (2) weeks
thereafter. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
08.12.2023
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No
sp
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal Subordinate Court), at
Vridhachalam.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.DHANDAPANI, J.,
sp
08.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
