Madras High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Pitchaiyammal on 7 June, 2023
C.M.A.(MD).No.462 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.M.A.(MD).No.462 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.4085 of 2022
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Kumbakonam,
represented by its Divisional Manager.
... Appellant
Vs.
1.Pitchaiyammal
2.Chandran
3.Suganthi
4.Durga @ Durga Devi
5.Thavakumar
6.Anthoni Sahayaraj
7.Balathandayuthapani
... Respondents
PRAYER: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2021
made in M.C.O.P.No.160 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thanjavur @ Kumbakonam.
For Appellant : Mr.A.S.Mathialagan
For RR1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
C.M.A.(MD).No.462 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed challenging the award passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thanjavur @
Kumbakonam in M.C.O.P.No.160 of 2014, dated 08.09.2021, to the extent of
Rs.1,00,000/- on the basis of P.A. coverage.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
On 12.09.2013, at about 3.30 p.m., when the deceased was riding a
motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 68 J 8623 along with his friend in
Thanjavur Ponnagar Vaari Cross Road from East to West direction, the third
respondent drove the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 49 L 5355 in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler. As a result, the
deceased succumbed to injuries. Hence, the petitioners have filed the claim
petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.
3. Before the Tribunal, the second respondent/Insurance Company
admitted that the insurance was in force on the date of accident and the F.I.R.
was registered against the rider of the offending vehicle and he has no valid
driving licence and insurance and disputed the insurance. The Tribunal, after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.462 of 2022
holding that since the offending vehicle did not have valid insurance and taking
note of the fact that the deceased vehicle was insured and the P.A. coverage and
awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company
mainly challenged the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded against the Insurance
Company, on the ground that there is no driving licence possessed by the
deceased at the time of accident.
5. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioners, P.W.1 was examined
and Ex.P1 to P4 were marked and on the side of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3
were examined and Exs.R1 to R6 were marked.
6. In the light of the above submissions, now the point for consideration
in this appeal is whether the Tribunal is right in directing the
appellant/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, on the basis of PA
coverage?
7. It is not in dispute that there is a valid insurance at the time of
accident. The only contention is that to claim such personal accident coverage,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.462 of 2022
the person should have possessed valid driving licence and reliance has been
placed on the evidence of R.W.2, who is the Assistant, Regional Transport
Office, Thiruvarur.
8. On perusal of the above evidence indicate that the name of the
deceased is not found in the ledger of the R.T.O. Office. However, the evidence
of R.W.2, in the cross examination clearly indicate that the possibility of
obtaining licence from other RTO Office and the same cannot be ruled out.
9. It is relevant to note that if there is no valid driving licence, they ought
to have taken proper steps either for production of the documents or they ought
to have given a notice to the first respondent or the legal heirs of the deceased
to produce the licence. Only after issuing notice, in the event the documents are
not coming, at least they can draw adverse interference against the party. For
producing the documents, no such steps whatsoever taken. Therefore, merely
on the basis of the evidence of R.W.2, the contention of the Insurance Company
cannot be countenanced.
10. Admittedly, on the date of accident, the insurance is valid and it
covers personal accident to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is not in dispute that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.462 of 2022
the insurance was very much valid for Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, the Insurance
Company cannot deny the just compensation, that too payable as per the
contract, on a technical ground. In respect of the other aspects, the amount
awarded against the owner of the offending vehicle is not interfered with.
11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
07.06.2023
akv
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Thanjavur @ Kumbakonam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.462 of 2022
N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.
akv
C.M.A.(MD).No.462 of 2022
07.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
