Madras High Court
S.Muthukumar vs The District Collector on 20 July, 2023
W.P(MD)No.9966 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.9966 of 2015
S.Muthukumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
2.The Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Head Officer, No. 24 Whites Road,
Chennai 14.
3.The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd,
Sitalakshmi Complex, GST. Road,
Thirunagar, Madurai - 6. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
Respondents to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioner damaged
insured vehicle on the basis of petitioner representation dated 10.04.2015
and 12.06.2015.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9966 of 2015
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Solaisamy
For Respondents : Mrs.K.Christy Theboral,
Addl. Government Pleader for R1.
Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan for R3.
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the learned
Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent and the learned
counsel for the second respondent.
2.The basic facts are not in dispute. The petitioner purchased a car
bearing registration No.TN-59-Q-9903. The car met with an accident on
28.03.2015. The vehicle had toppled and the vehicle suffered damage.
The value of the damage was estimated as Rs.1,04,084/-. The petitioner
applied to the third respondent for payment.
3.The third respondent took the stand that while the vehicle was
insured in the name of M.Sharmila, the petitioner had not got the
insurance policy transferred in his name. It was only the ownership of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9966 of 2015
the vehicle which alone was transferred. In that view of the matter, the
claim was repudiated.
4.The only question that calls for consideration is whether on
account of non-transfer of insurance policy in his favour, the claim could
have been negatived.
5.The issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
decision reported (1996) 1 SCC 221 (M/s.Complete Insulations Private
Limited Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited). The Hon'ble
Apex Court had held as follows:-
“10.If the policy of insurance covers other risks as well,
e.g., damage caused to the vehicle of the insured himself, that
would be a matter falling outside Chapter XI of the New Act
and in the realm of contract for which there must be an
agreement between the insurer and the transferee, the former
undertaking to cover the risk or damage to the vehicle. In the
present case since there was no such agreement and since the
insurer had not transferred the policy of insurance in relation
thereto to the transferee, the insurer was not liable to make
good the damage to the vehicle.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9966 of 2015
6.This was followed in the subsequent decision reported in (1999)
3 SCC 754 (G.Govindan Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited).
The Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
“10.This Court in the said judgment held that the
provisions under the new Act and the old Act are substantially
the same in relation to liability in regard to third party. This
Court also recognised the view taken in the separate judgment
in Kondaiah's case that the transferee-insured could not be said
to be a third party qua the vehicle in question. In other words, a
victim or the legal representatives of the victim cannot be
denied the compensation by the insurer on the ground that the
policy was not transferred in the name of the transferee. This
Court further held as follows :-
"6.Now, under the old Act although the insurer
could refuse to tansfer the certificate of insurance
in certain circumstances and the transfer was not
automatic as under the new Act, there was under
the old law protection to third parties, that is victim
of the accident. The protection was available by
virtue of Sections 24 and 95 of the old Act.''
11.The same view was taken in New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. v. Sheela Rani (Smt.) & Ors., [1998] 6 SCC 599.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9966 of 2015
7.Admittedly, only in the R.C.Book, the petitioner's name was
entered. The insurance policy did not stand in his name. Therefore, the
third respondent rightly negatived the petitioner's claim. Relief cannot
be granted and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
20.07.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
To:-
The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.9966 of 2015
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias
W.P(MD)No.9966 of 2015
20.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
