Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 6825 Mad
Judgement Date : 22 June, 2023
C.M.A.(MD).No.359 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISHKUMAR
C.M.A.(MD).No.359 of 2023
1.Umarsherif
2.Bharakathnisha ... Appellants
Vs.
1.Suganya
2.The Manager,
The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
80 Feet Road,
Anna Nagar,
Madurai 625 020.
... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2021
passed in M.C.O.P.No.2090 of 2017 on the file of the Special District
Court to deal Motor Accident Cases, Madurai.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Sriram
For R2 : Mr.V.Sakthivel
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.359 of 2023
JUDGMENT
Challenging the dismissal of the application filed seeking
compensation, on account of the death of the son of claimants, the
present appeal came to be filed.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
On 26.06.2017, at about 1.00 hour, while the deceased was riding a
motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 50 BU 7150 belonged to the first
respondent, near A.Vallalpatti Naickanpatti Vilakku, a cow was suddenly
crossed the road. To avoid hitting the cow, the deceased applied the
break. As a result, the motorcycle capsized and the deceased sustained
grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries on 28.06.2017. Therefore,
the claimants being the parents of the deceased filed a petition before the
Tribunal seeking compensation. The second respondent/Insurance
Company has disputed the accident, on the ground that the deceased in a
drunken mood rode the vehicle without any licence and without wearing
the helmet invited the accident.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD).No.359 of 2023
3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2
were examined and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked and on the side of the
respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were
marked and Exs.X1 and X2 were also marked.
4. Based on the materials, the Tribunal has dismissed the
application, on the ground that the deceased did not possess valid driving
licence, which has been established by the Insurance Company.
Therefore, the Personal Accident coverage cannot be granted.
Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by the
claimants.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit
that though R.W.2 has spoken that no licence was issued to the deceased
from the R.T.O. Office, Melur, Madurai District, the possibility of licence
from other area cannot be ruled out and the owner of the vehicle has not
disputed the same. Hence, the Personal Accident coverage cannot be
avoided.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD).No.359 of 2023
6. In the light of the above submissions, now the points for
consideration in this appeal is (i) Whether the claimants are entitled to
claim a compensation on the basis of P.A. coverage, which was taken by
the owner of the vehicle ? (ii) Whether the Insurance Company is liable
to pay the compensation?
7. Though the owner of the vehicle has been made as a party, he
remained ex-parte. This fact clearly indicate that in fact he has allowed
the deceased to ride the motorcycle, such being the position, once the
vehicle has been borrowed by the deceased from the owner and rode the
vehicle, the deceased normally stepped into the shoes of the original
owner. Therefore, the insurance in respect of the P.A. coverage is payable
to the deceased. This aspect is not in dispute. But, it is relevant to note
that for payment of P.A. coverage, certain parameters and conditions are
mandatory. It is purely personal contract between the Insurance Company
and the insurer and only on showing the fact that there was no violation
of the policy conditions and other violations, the P.A. coverage normally
will payable. It is the specific contention of the second respondent herein
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD).No.359 of 2023
that the deceased did not have a valid licence and to substantiate the
same, R.W.2 was examined and her evidence clearly show that there was
no licence issued to the deceased from the RTO Office, Melur, Madurai
District, where the deceased was permanently residing. It is further to be
noted that P.W.1, the mother of the deceased also admitted in her
evidence that the deceased did not possess valid driving licence at the
relevant point of time.
8. Such being the position, this Court is of the view that when the
policy condition has been clearly violated and the deceased did not have
a valid licence, the P.A. coverage cannot be directed to be paid, as per the
contract.
9. In such a view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this
appeal. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
22.06.2023
NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No akv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD).No.359 of 2023
To
1.The Special District Court, Motor Accident Cases, Madurai.
2.The Record Keeper, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD).No.359 of 2023
N.SATHISHKUMAR, J.
akv
C.M.A.(MD)No.359 of 2023
22.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!