Madras High Court
Durgaram vs Arjunan on 21 November, 2023
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
CMA.No.1141 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.11.2023
CORAM: JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
CMA.Nos.1141 of 2022
Durgaram ... Appellant
-Vs-
1.Arjunan
2.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Gandhi Road, Kallakurichi.
3.G.Murugan
4.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
No.140, Chotbhai Centre, 3rd Floor,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Numgambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V.Act,
1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.01.2020 passed in
MCOP.No.247 of 2017, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III
Additional District Court), Villupuram @ Kallakurichi.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Suryanarayanan
For R1 and R3 : No appearance
For R2 : Mr.P.Kandasamy
For R4 : Mr.M.Jayaraj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
CMA.No.1141 of 2022
JUDGMENT
In an accident involving two 2-wheelers, that took place on 13.12.2016, the
appellant herein, who is a rider of one of the two wheeler had suffered injuries.
He preferred a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the
owners of the two vehicles involved as well as their respective insurance
company. The owners of both the vehicles remained ex-parte but, the
respective insurance company of these vehicles, which are arrayed as second
and fourth respondents contested the matter.
2.Certain additional facts may now be stated;
● After the accident, FIR was registered against the appellant on the
allegation that it was he who rode his motorcycle negligently.
● The second respondent/insurance company of the motor cycle which
belong to the first respondent and driven by the appellant at the time of
accident, took up a plea that the appellant as the tortfeasor is not entitled
to claim compensation.
● So far as the fourth respondent is concerned, the fourth respondent had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
taken up a plea that the rider of the offending two wheeler did not
possess an valid license and hence, it must be absolved.
● The Tribunal had allowed the claim petition but, has fastened the
liability only on the first respondent, the owner of the very motorcycle,
which the appellant rode.
3.The Tribunal's approach is as below;
a) Since the appellant is a tortfeasor, the second respondent/insurance
company cannot be made liable;
b) Even though the appellant claims that he was earning Rs.3,300/- a
month, in his cross-examination he had stated that his monthly income
was about Rs.8,000/-. Since the annual income at that rate exceeds the
upper cap of Rs.40,000/- per month under Section 163A of the MV Act,
the appellant is ineligible to invoke Section 163A.
c) So far as the fourth respondent is concerned, which is the insurer of the
other two wheeler is concerned, since the rider of this two wheeler did
not possess a valid license, no liability can be fastened against the
company.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents 2
and 4. So far as the fourth respondent is concerned, no claim is made against it.
The contest is essentially between the appellant and the second respondent.
5.The principle reason why the claimant lost his claim petition before the
Tribunal is that his annual income was more than Rs.40,000/- and which the
Tribunal had occasion to find based on the oral testimony of the appellant
before it and secondly, he is ineligible to invoke Section 163A of the Motor
Vehicles Act. However, after United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs.
Sunil Kumar and another [(2019) 12 SCC 398] case, the law on the subject
has underwent legislative change, as a result of which, Section 163A of the
Motor Vehicles Act is now dropped and is replaced by Section 164. Under the
amended Section 164, irrespective of the income and the negligence of the
claimant, the court can grant fixed compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- in case of
grievous injury suffered by the claimant.
6.The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Iffco Tokio General Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Uma Devi and Ors. [2023 SCC Online Del 3131], has held that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Courts in India are empowered, under Section 164, to grant compensation of
Rs. 2,50,000/- in the case of grievous injury suffered by the claimant if the
matter is to be adjudicated after the passing of the Amendment Act
notwithstanding the fact that the accident itself had taken place before the
amendment.
7.In terms of Ext.C.1, the certificate issued by the Medical Board, the appellant
had suffered fractures to his right leg, dislocation of his left radius and other
injuries. Apparently, the injuries are grievous in nature and as a consequence,
in terms of Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant would be
entitled to a flat Rs.2,50,000/-.
8.Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the first
and second respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the appellant a
sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) and they
are required to deposit the same before the Tribunal within a period of six (6)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the
appellant is permitted is permitted the same. No costs.
21.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tsg
N.SESHASAYEE, J.,
Tsg
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(III Additional District Court),
Villupuram @ Kallakurichi.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
21.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
