Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Sumathi on 13 September, 2023
CMA No.942 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.09.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.No.942 of 2022
and
C.M.P. No.7021 of 2022
The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
D.O.IV, Second Floor,
No.169, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Sumathi
2.Sathish (Minor)
3.Prasanth (Minor)
[Minors 2 & 3 are rep., by their mother/1st respondent herein]
4.R. Ramu ... Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2018 in
MCOP.No.98 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Subordinate Judge) at Gingee.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.942 of 2022
For Appellant : Mrs. R. Sree Vidhya
For Respondents : Mr. M. Santhana Raman, for RR1 to 3
No Appearance for R4
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the award dated 15.11.2018 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Gingee in MCOP.No.98 of 2009.
2. The appellant / Insurance Company is the second respondent in
MCOP.No.98 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Subordinate Judge), Gingee.
3. The respondents 1 to 3 herein filed a claim petition before the
Tribunal stating that on 04.06.2008 at about 4.30 pm when the deceased was
walking on a public road, the driver of the offending Auto insured with the
appellant came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the
deceased, as a result of which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries.
4. The fourth respondent, the owner of the Auto remained ex parte
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.942 of 2022
before the Tribunal.
5. The appellant filed a counter stating that the accident did not take
place due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle insured with
the appellant; that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid
license; and that in any case, the compensation claimed was excessive and
prayed for allowing this appeal.
6. The respondents 1 to 3 examined PW1 and PW2 and marked Ex.P1
to P3. The appellant examined RW1 and marked Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.
7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence
filed on either side, held that the accident took place due to the negligence of
the driver of the offending vehicle and directed the appellant and the fourth
respondent to pay a compensation of Rs.12,79,600/- to the respondents 1 to 3.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.942 of 2022
had established before the Tribunal that the driver of the insured vehicle did
not have a valid license; that they had examined their officer RW1 and also
marked Ex.R2 to show that inspite of notice sent to the owner, the driving
license was not produced and hence, the appellant is not liable to pay
compensation. In any event, the Tribunal ought to have given liberty to the
appellant to recover the compensation payable from the first respondent in
view of the violation of policy conditions.
9. Though notice was served on the fourth respondent, none has
entered appearance.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 per contra submitted
that the award of the Tribunal is just and reasonable and no interference is
called for and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
11. On hearing the counsel on either side that there is no dispute with
regard to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The learned
counsel for the appellant was also unable to point out any error in the finding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.942 of 2022
of the Tribunal fixing the negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle
insured with the appellant. However, it is seen from the records that the
owner of the vehicle / fourth respondent herein remained ex parte before the
Tribunal. He had not produced the driving license inspite of notice sent by
the appellant. This issue, however, was not gone into by the Tribunal.
Therefore, in the facts, this Court is of the view that it would be just and
reasonable to direct the appellant to deposit the compensation amount and
thereafter, recover it from the fourth respondent, if they are able to establish
that the fourth respondent had violated the policy condition.
12. With the above observation, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
disposed of. The appellant / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
compensation amount of Rs.12,79,600/- along with interest and costs, less the
amount already deposited, if any, within a period of six (6) weeks from the
date of a receipt of copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the first
respondent, who is the wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs.6 lakhs and
permitted to withdraw her share of the award amount along with interest and
costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn and the balance sum shall be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.942 of 2022
divided equally to the respondents 2 and 3. The share of the minor
respondents 2 and 3 is directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalised
Bank till the minor respondents 2 and 3 attains majority. However, the 1 st
appellant, mother of the minor respondents 2 and 3 is permitted to withdraw
the accrued interest once in three months. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
13.09.2023
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
AT
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge)
Gingee.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.942 of 2022
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
AT
C.M.A.No.942 of 2022 and
C.M.P. No.7021 of 2022
13.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
