Madras High Court
Ramesh vs Anandhavelu on 11 December, 2023
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
C.M.A.No.1997 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.M.A.No.1997 of 2020
Ramesh ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Anandhavelu
2.Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. by its Branch manager,
Having office at
No.E-8, RHCO, Sitapura,
Jaipur, Rajasthan. ... Respondents
Prayer:
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to allow this appeal and to allow the claim in
M.C.O.P.No.159 of 2015 dated 10.01.2020 on the file of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, (District Judge), Karaikal.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj
For Respondents : R1 – No Appearance
Mr.K.Poomalai for R2
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment
and decree dated 10.01.2020 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tribunal, (District Judge), Karaikal, in M.C.O.P. No.159 of 2015.
2.The brief facts of the case is that on 27.06.2014 at about
10.00p.m., the appellant was riding the motor cycle Bajaj Discover
bearing Registration No.PY-02-N-2660 with a pillion rider at Neravy
No.1 Salai at Neravy near 7th Day Adventist School from West to East.
At that time two two wheelers bearing Registration Nos.PY02-F-0313
and PY02-E-8275 came one after another from the opposite direction
in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle driven by the
appellant, due to which, the appellant sustained injuries.
3.Thereafter, the injured claimant/ appellant filed claim petition
before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation of
Rs.40 Lakhs. After adjudication, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
rejected the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant
claimant has filed this appeal.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that that the appellant was riding the motor cycle owned by the first
respondent and the same was insured with the second respondent
Insurance Company. Since the offending vehicle was not insured
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
with
any of the Insurance Company, the appellant did not implead the
owner of the offending vehicle and impleaded the owner of the
vehicle driven by him, however, the Tribunal rejected the claim
petition.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent
Insurance Company submitted that the appellant is the borrower of
the two wheeler and he filed claim petition as against the owner of
the two wheeler driven by him and not against the third party and
hence, he is not entitled for compensation either under Section 166 or
under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act and hence, the Tribunal
rejected the claim petition, which warrants no interference.
6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
claimant and the learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent Insurance Company and perused the materials available
on record.
7.The accident and the manner in which the accident happened
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
are not disputed. Admittedly, the appellant is the borrower of the
two wheeler and he filed claim petition as against the owner of the
two wheeler driven by him and the appellant is not a third party and
hence, he is
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
pri
not entitled for compensation either under Section 166 or under
Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act and hence the Tribunal rightly
rejected the claim petition, which warrants no interference.
8.The civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. The judgment
and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.159 of 2015 dated 10.01.2020 by
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (District Judge), Karaikal, is
confirmed. No costs.
11.12.2023
pri
Index: Yes/ No
Speaking Order: Yes/ No
NCC: Yes/ No
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (District Judge), Karaikal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
