Madras High Court
M/S.National Insurance Company ... vs Varadharaj on 27 March, 2023
C.M.A.No.1377 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA
C.M.A.No.1377 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.10143 of 2020
M/S.National Insurance Company Limited,
2nd Floor, L.R.N. Colony,
Saradha College Main Road,
Hasthampatti, Salem – 7. ... Appellant
Vs
1.Varadharaj
2.Saradha
3.Uma Maheswari
4.Minor Gowtham Khadhiri Perumal
5.Minor Deepak Kumar
6.Ellappan ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the decree and judgment passed in
MACT.O.P.No.1550 of 2015 dated 22.12.2017 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, 1st Additional District Court, Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.N.B.Surekha
For Respondents : Mr.M.R.Thangavel, for RR1 to 5
No Appearance for R6
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1377 of 2020
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed to set aside the decree
and judgment passed in MACT.O.P.No.1550 of 2015 dated 22.12.2017 on
the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1st Additional District
Court, Salem.
2. The Insurance Company is the appellant herein. The
appeal is filed questioning the liability as well as the quantum of
compensation awarded by the claims tribunal.
3. The brief facts necessary for the consideration of the
appeal are as follows:-
On 05.05.2015, when the deceased Mohanraj was walking on the
left side of the Omalur to Dharmapuri Service Road, at that time a Hero
Splendor Pro Motor Bike bearing Registration No.TN-30-BZ-7732 driven
by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in the same direction and
hit the deceased-Mohanraj. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained
multiple grievous injuries and he was immediately rushed to the Omalur
Government Hospital. Later, he was shifted to Nimans Hospital, Bangalore
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1377 of 2020
and was further treated at Neuro foundation Hospital, Salem. The deceased,
later succumbed to injuries on 06.06.2015. The deceased was aged about 35
years at the time of accident and was working as a Handloom Pure Silk
Designer and earning a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month. The claim petition
was filed by the parents, wife and the children of the deceased claiming
compensation of a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-.
4. The first respondent, the owner of the offending vehicle
remained exparte.
5. The second respondent / Insurance Company filed a
counter, denying all the averments made in the claim petition. It was
specifically pleaded that the driver of the first respondent vehicle did not
possess a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and
hence, the second respondent was not liable to pay the compensation. The
second respondent further submitted that the income claimed and also the
claims under the various heads were exorbitant and imaginary. On all these
grounds, the second respondent prayed for the dismissal of the claim
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1377 of 2020
6. Before the Tribunal, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and
Exs.P1 to P18 were marked on the side of the claimants. On the side of the
respondent / Insurance Company, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and
Exs.R1 to R7 were marked.
7. The claims tribunal, on assessment of entire evidence on
record, allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of
Rs.16,83,188/- along with 7.5% interest. Aggrieved by the judgment and
decree of the claims tribunal, the second respondent / Insurance Company
has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company
raised two grounds at the time of arguments. Firstly, the counsel submitted
that on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not
possess a valid driving license and the same was proved by the Insurance
Company by examining R.W.1, the official of the RTO Office and Ex.R1
was marked to show that driving license was issued to the driver much later
to the date of the accident. In the absence of any contra evidence, it is clear
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1377 of 2020
that the driver did not possess valid license at the time of the accident.
Therefore, the tribunal went wrong in not directing the appellant to pay and
recover from the insurer / owner.
9. The learned counsel further submitted that as far as the
compensation towards medical expenses was concerned, the tribunal failed
to note that there was replication of the medical bills to the tune of
Rs.22,310/- and therefore, the tribunal ought to have deducted a sum of
Rs.22,310/-. The counsel therefore, submitted that the judgment of the
tribunal had to be interfered by this Court.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly conceded
that on perusal of the medical bills, it is seen that there is a replication of the
bills to the tune of Rs.22,310/-.
11. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the
materials on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1377 of 2020
12. It is seen that the accident occurred on 05.05.2015 at
about 8.30 hours. It is seen that the driving license was issued to the driver
of the offending vehicle on 14.05.2015 which is 10 days after the date of the
accident. It is further to be noted that the official of the RTO was examined
as R.W.1 and he has spoken about Ex.R1. Therefore, from the evidence on
record, it is clear that on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending
vehicle did not possess a valid driving license and as such, the tribunal
ought to have directed pay and recover to the appellant.
13. Therefore, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled
to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle after
paying the same to the claimants. As far as the replication of medical bills
to the tune of Rs.22,310/- is concerned, it is conceded by the respondents
counsel that on perusal of the medical bills, it is seen that there is a
replication to the tune of Rs.22,310/-. Therefore, the award of the tribunal
with regard to medical bills of Rs.2,57,188/- is modified to Rs.2,34,878/-
(2,57,188 – 22,310/-). It is therefore, held that the claimants shall be
entitled to a sum of Rs.16,60,878/- towards compensation along with 7.5%
interest. As regards the apportionment of compensation, the same shall be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1377 of 2020
done in the manner directed by the tribunal. It is further submitted by the
learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company that 50% of the
award amount was deposited to the credit of MACT.O.P.No.1550 of 2015
vide order of this Court dated 21.09.2020 in C.M.P.No.10143/2020. The
appellant / Insurance Company is therefore directed to deposit the balance
amount along with 7.5% interest, within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this order. The Insurance Company is permitted to pay
and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No
costs.
27.03.2023
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1377 of 2020
N.MALA, J.
AT
To
1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
1st Additional District Court, Salem.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
C.M.A.No.1377 of 2020 and
C.M.P.No.10143 of 2020
27.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
