Madras High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Chellamal on 28 June, 2023
C.M.A(MD)No.931 of 2009
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.A(MD)No.931 of 2009
and
Cros.Obj(MD)No.30 of 2010
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2009
C.M.A(MD)No.931 of 2009:
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Branch Manager,
Branch Office-II,
3-E, Balavinayagar Kovil Street,
Tuticorin. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.Chellamal
2.Muthukaruppan (A) Velayutham
3.Rajendran
4.Rajammal
5.Sudalaimuthu (A) Durai
6.Vaikundaramasamy (A) Kumar
7.Jeya
8.Alaguramakrishnan ... Respondents/1st Respondent&
Petitioners 1-7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
C.M.A(MD)No.931 of 2009
9.IRDA (Insurance Regulatory Development
Authority),
Parisrame Bhavan,
Basheer Bagh, Hydrabad,
Telangana District. ... Respondent
(R9 suo moto impleaded vide Court order, dated
23.12.2016 in C.M.A(MD)No.931 of 2009)
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, to call for the records of the lower Court and
consider the merits of the case and to set aside the award passed by the
tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.412 of 1997, dated 03.02.2006.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Jaganathan
For R1-R7 : Mr.T.Selvakumaran
For R8 & R9 : No Appearance
Cros.Obj(MD)No.30 of 2010:
1.Chellamal
2.Muthukaruppan (A) Velayutham
3.Rajendran
4.Rajammal
5.Sudalaimuthu (A) Durai
6.Vaikundaramasamy (A) Kumar
7.Jeya ... Cross Objectors/Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Vs.
2/9
C.M.A(MD)No.931 of 2009
1.United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Branch Manager,
Branch Office-II,
3-E, Balavinayagar Kovil Street,
Tuticorin.
2.Alaguramakrishnan ... Respondents/Respondents
3.IRDA (Insurance Regulatory Development
Authority),
Parisrame Bhavan,
Basheer Bagh, Hydrabad,
Telangana District. ... Respondent
(R3 suo moto impleaded vide Court order, dated
23.12.2016 in Cros.Obj(MD)No.30 of 2010)
PRAYER: Cross Objection is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of Code of
Civil Procedure, against the order and decree, dated 03.02.2006 of the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Sessions Judge),
Tuticorin in M.C.O.P.No.412 of 1997.
For Appellants : Mr.T.Selvakumaran
For R1 : Mr.P.Jaganathan
JUDGMENT
The present appeal has been filed by the insurance company
challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Tuticorin in M.C.O.P.No.412 of 1997 primarily on the ground of
liability.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.931 of 2009
2. According to the claimants, the deceased was an occupant in a
trekker and he was travelling from Rajapalayam to Tirunelveli. At the
said point of time, the driver of the said trekker car had driven the
vehicle in a rash and negligence manner and it got capsized. In the said
accident, the deceased succumbed to the injuries and thereafter, passed
away. The claimants have prayed for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as
compensation.
3. The insurance company had filed a counter disputing the
manner of accident, negligence and quantum of the award. The insurance
company had filed an additional counter contending that it is a private
car policy, but the vehicle has been taken by the deceased on hire.
Therefore, there is clear violation of policy conditions. Hence, they have
prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. The tribunal after considering the oral and documentary
evidence, arrived at a finding that the driver of the trekker car was solely
responsible for the accident. The tribunal further considered the defence
raised by the insurance company with regard to the private car policy.
The insurance company was not able to extract any admission from P.W.
1 or P.W.2 with regard to the fact that the vehicle was hired by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deceased and other occupants. The owner of the trekker car had
C.M.A(MD)No.931 of 2009
examined himself as R.W.2. He has also denied the fact that the vehicle
was given on hire to the deceased and his family members. In fact, in his
deposition, he has specifically deposed that the deceased and other
occupants of the car were his relatives and the vehicle was not given on
hire. Based upon the said facts, the tribunal had rejected the defence of
the insurance company and proceeded to mulct the liability upon the
insurance company to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. This award
is under challenge in the present appeal.
5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in
the additional counter, the company has taken a specific stand that the
vehicle was taken on hire by the deceased and other occupants of the car
and therefore, it is a case of clear violation of policy conditions. He
further contended that suggestions were put to P.W.1 and P.W.2 to the
effect that the vehicle was taken on hire. The suggestions were also put
to R.W.2 who was the owner of the vehicle to the effect that the vehicle
was taken on hire. However, the said aspects have not been properly
appreciated by the tribunal and it has proceeded to mulct the liability
upon the insurance company. When there is a case of policy violation,
the tribunal ought to have directed the insurance company to satisfy the
award and it should have permitted the insurance company to recover the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
same from the owner of the vehicle.
C.M.A(MD)No.931 of 2009
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents had
contended that all the suggestions of the insurance company to P.W.1,
P.W.2 and R.W.2 have been negatived by them in their cross-
examination. In fact, the owner of the vehicle, namely the 1st respondent
had claimed own damage for his vehicle from the insurance company.
The company had honoured the same and paid the amount under Exhibit
R.2. Therefore, they cannot take a different stand when compensation has
been claimed by the occupants of the said car. Hence, he prayed for
sustaining the award passed by the tribunal.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side.
8. A perusal of the deposition of P.W.1, P.W.2 and R.W.2 clearly
indicates that all of them have negatived the suggestions put forward by
the insurance company with regard to the hiring of the vehicle at the
relevant point of time. No other evidence has been placed on record by
the insurance company to establish the fact that the vehicle was taken on
hire by the deceased and his family members at the time of accident. The
owner of the vehicle was examined as R.W.2, who has categorically
contended that the deceased and the other occupants of the car were his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
relatives, who have taken the same for attending a function. Further, it
C.M.A(MD)No.931 of 2009
could be seen that the trekker car got damaged in the said accident, for
which the owner of the car had claimed own damage from their insurance
company. The insurance company has honored the said claim and paid
the amount under Exhibit R.2. In case, if there is a policy violation, the
own damage claim would not have been honored by the insurance
company. Having honored the claim for own damages to the owner of the
vehicle, the insurance company cannot turn around and contend that they
will not indemnify the owner with regard to the claim made by the third
party. Therefore, there are no merits in the appeal. This appeal stands
dismissed.
9. Cros.Obj(MD)No.30 of 2010 has been filed seeking to enhance
the award passed by the tribunal.
10. The claimants have claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the
death of the occupant of the private car. The tribunal has awarded a sum
of Rs.74,000/-. Considering the fact that the deceased was 68 years old
and he was a Poojari of a temple, this Court does not find any scope for
enhancement of the compensation. Hence, the cross objection stands
dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.931 of 2009
11. C.M.A(MD)No.931 of 2009 and Cros.Obj(MD)No.30 of 2010
stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
28.06.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gbg
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Additional Sessions Judge),
Tuticorin.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.931 of 2009
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
gbg
Judgment made in
C.M.A(MD)No.931 of 2009
and
Cros.Obj(MD)No.30 of 2010
28.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
