Madras High Court
The Manager vs Ramadoss on 11 January, 2023
C.M.A.No.812 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.01.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
C.M.A.No.812 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.5818 of 2022
The Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
No.7, Varadhanar Street,
Chengalpattu. ... Appellant
Vs.
Boologammal (died)
1.Ramadoss
2.Kamatchi
3.Kavitha
4.Deivanathan
5.Birla ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree made in
M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2015, dated 19.03.2021, on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Full
Additional Charge, Chengalpattu.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.812 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.M.B.Raghvan
For M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates
For R1 to R4 : Mr.G.Krishnamurthy
For Mr.E.Kumarakotti
For R5 :Died (steps not taken)
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the Insurance Company herein.
2. The 5th respondent is stated to be dead and no steps have
been taken.
3. The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging
the award granted in M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2015 on the ground that they are
not liable to pay the compensation under the policy as there is a violation
of policy condition.
4. The factum of the accident, manner of the accident, rash and
negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle,
insured with the respondent company are not in dispute and accordingly
the same are hereby confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.812 of 2022
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that at the
time of the accident, the driver of the two wheeler does not possess a
valid driving license and hence the same would amount to violation of
policy condition (Ex.R2). As per Ex.R2, it is a package policy. While the
injured is a pedestrian, the two wheeler dashed against him and the
accident had taken place.
6. To substantiate the plea, the Insurance Company-the second
respondent before the Tribunal examined Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-
II Mr.Gnanavel as R.W.1 and marked Ex.R1 Authorization letter and
searching slip; R.W.2 is a Deputy Manager of the second respondent-
Insurance Company. They also issued a notice to the driver of the vehicle,
which was received by the said person and acknowledgement card is
marked as Ex.R6.
7. Taking into consideration the oral evidence of R.W.1 and
R.W.2 coupled with Ex.R2, this Court finds that at the time of the accident,
the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving license and hence
the same amounts to violation of policy condition and therefore, the
Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation jointly and
severally. However, following the judicial decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.812 of 2022
Court decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.Swaran Singh
and others reported in 2004 (1) TNMAC 104 (SC) , this Court is inclined to
issue a direction to the appellant/Insurance Company to pay the award
amount with appropriate costs with interest and recover the same from
the owner of the vehicle .
8. With this modification, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
partly- allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P is closed.
11.01.2023
nvi
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Full
Additional Charge, Chengalpattu.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.812 of 2022
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.,
nvi
C.M.A.No.812 of 2022 and
C.M.P.No.5818 of 2022
11.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
