Madras High Court
Tata Aig General Insurance ... vs Thirumalai Murugan on 9 June, 2023
C.M.A.(MD).No.267 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.M.A.(MD).No.267 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.3204 of 2023
TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited,
through its Branch Manager,
Rajendran Nagar,
Thirunelveli. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Thirumalai Murugan
2.Selvaraj
3.Arokiyam
Cause title is accepted vide Court order
dated 27.01.2023 made in C.M.P.(MD).No.773/2023
in C.M.A.(MD).SR.No.69905 of 2022.
... Respondents
PRAYER: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 14th September
2022 passed in M.C.O.P.No.76 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional Subordinate Judge of Tenkasi.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Sakthivel
For R1 to R3 : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
C.M.A.(MD).No.267 of 2023
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved over the award passed by the Tribunal for a sum of Rs.
40,000/- for the injury sustained by the claimant, the Insurance Company has
filed the present appeal.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
On 11.09.2014, at about 3.15 p.m., while the claimant was riding his
motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 76 U 1962, the first respondent riding
the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 76 K 1222 belonging to the second
respondent in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. As
a result, the claimant has sustained injury and also fracture and a crime also
registered against the first respondent in Crime No.199 of 2014 for the offences
under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. Hence, the claimant has filed the
petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation. The third respondent has
filed a counter stating that the accident was occurred only due to the negligent
driving of the first respondent.
3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioner, P.W.1 was examined
and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked and on the side of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and
2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.267 of 2023
4. The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence adduced and the documents
filed, has come to the conclusion that the first respondent drove the motorcycle
in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner motorcycle.
However, the Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.
40,000/- as compensation, since the motorcycle driven by the claimant was
insured with the appellant. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be
filed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that
when the offending vehicle was not insured with the appellant, the direction to
pay compensation by the Insurance Company is not valid in the eye of law.
6. Despite the name of the respondents printed in the cause list, none
appeared for them.
7. 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 to pay
the compensation, particularly the appellant/Insurance Company was not the
insurer of the offending vehicle?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.267 of 2023
8. From the records, it is clearly established the fact that the claimant was
riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 76 U 1962 and the case of
the claimant is that the accident was caused only by the first respondent, while
riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 76 K 1222 in a rash and
negligent manner. The Tribunal also found on the basis of the evidence that
only the first respondent rode the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. It
is relevant to note that the insurer of the motorcycle bearing Registration
No.TN 76 K 1222 has not been made as a party. However, admittedly the rider
of the offending vehicle did not have any valid insurance at the relevant point
of time. Such being the position, the Tribunal having found that only the rider
of the offending vehicle has caused the accident. The Tribunal ought not to
have directed the Insurance Company to pay that amount. Admittedly, the
offending vehicle has no insurance.
9. In such a view of the matter, when the negligence entirely on the rider
of the offending vehicle and the insurer of the offending vehicle also not made
as a party, the finding of the Tribunal directing the appellant to pay
compensation is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the order of the
Tribunal is set aside and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall be
paid only by the rider and the owner of the offending vehicle.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.267 of 2023
10. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
09.06.2023
akv
To
1.The Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
and Additional Subordinate Judge,
Tenkasi.
2.The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.267 of 2023
N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.
akv
C.M.A.(MD).No.267 of 2023
09.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
