Madras High Court
Divisional Manager vs Karanthan Ambalam on 4 March, 2024
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: S.Srimathy
C.M.A(MD)Nos.989 and 990 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.03.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.989 and 990 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.9782, 9783 of 2022,
11284 and 11285 of 2023
C.M.A.(MD)No.989 of 2022:
Divisional Manager,
Cholamandalam General Insurance
Company Limited,
Nos.3 and 4, Dindigul Highway,
Near ENT Hospital,
Kalavasal, Madurai. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Karanthan Ambalam
2.Loganathan
3.Elanchezian ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, to set aside the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.439 of
2017, dated 23.11.2021, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Special Sub Court), Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
C.M.A(MD)Nos.989 and 990 of 2022
C.M.A.(MD)No.990 of 2022:
Divisional Manager,
Cholamandalam General Insurance
Company Limited,
Nos.3 and 4, Dindigul Highway,
Near ENT Hospital,
Kalavasal, Madurai. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Palanichamy
2.Loganathan
3.Elanchezian ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, to set aside the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.440 of
2017, dated 23.11.2021, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Special Sub Court), Madurai.
In both cases:
For Appellant : M/s.K.R.Shivashankari
For R1 : Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi
For R2 and 3 : No appearance
*****
COMMON JUDGMENT
The 3rd respondent in both cases is the owner of the vehicle. The 3rd
respondent remained ex-parte in the Tribunal as well. In spite of the same, this
Court directed to serve notice through paper publication and the appellant has
issued paper publication and filed proof to that effect. Hence, the process is
completed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)Nos.989 and 990 of 2022
2. The Insurance Company has preferred these Civil Miscellaneous
Appeals.
3. The contention of the Insurance Company is that the vehicle met with an
accident wherein the Cleaner of the vehicle was injured. Since the Cleaner is
covered under the policy and there is no violation of policy conditions and the
Insurance Company has admitted the liability and settled the entire amount in
M.C.O.P.No.430 of 2017.
4. However, the Insurance Company has preferred the present two Civil
Miscellaneous Appeals against the order granting compensation for the present
respondents who have claimed to be the owners of goods. The contention of the
Insurance Company is that the seating capacity of the vehicle is only two persons,
wherein the Driver and Cleaner are seated. The owners of the goods were seated
at the backside of the vehicle, which is violation of policy condition. Therefore,
the present claimants who are owner of goods are not entitled to compensation.
The further contention of the Insurance Company is that the two persons were
travelling after the delivery of goods. The owner of the goods will be permitted to
travel along with the goods but once the goods are sold, the owners of the goods
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)Nos.989 and 990 of 2022
ought to have taken passenger vehicle instead of travelling in the goods vehicle.
Therefore, there is violation of conditions. Hence, the award passed by the
Tribunal is erroneous. At least, the Tribunal ought to have considered to grant
pay and recovery from the owner of the vehicle.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in both cases
submitted that the FIR is filed by the Cleaner who had stated in the FIR that the
mangoes were carried in tray and after selling the same, the owners were
permitted to travel in the vehicle, hence the Insurance Company cannot raise such
plea. The relevant portion of the FIR is extracted hereunder:
“TN-55-K-6588 kNfe;jpuh gpf;fg;gpy; fpsPduhf ,Ue;J tUfpNwd;.
Nkw;gb Ntdpy; fle;j 13.04.16 k; Njjp ,uT vq;f CupypUe;J vq;f
Ciur;NrHe;j 1.Rg;igah kfd; RUl;ilad; (v) godpr;rhkp> 2.fhsp
mk;gyk; kfd; fue;jd; vd;gtuJ khq;fha;fis thliff;F l;Nu
%yk; Vw;wpNdhk;. Nkw;gb Ntid nghd;idah kfd; nts;isr;rhkp
vd;gtH Xl;bdhH. Nkw;gb Ntdpy; ehd; fpsPduhfTk; Nkw;gb khq;fha;
chpikahsHfs; Nkw;nrhd;d ,UtUk; Vwpf;nfhz;L md;W ,uNt
kJiu khHf;nfl; nrd;W Nkw;gb khq;fha;fis ,wf;fp mjw;Fs;s
gzj;ijg;ngw;Wf;nfhz;L kWehs; 14.04.2016-k; Njjp fhiyapy;
kJiuapypUe;J Gwg;gl;L Ckr;rpf;Fsk; rj;jpug;gl;b topahf
njw;Nf ,Ue;J tlf;F Kfkhf ej;jk; Nehf;fp te;J
nfhz;bUe;Njhk;.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)Nos.989 and 990 of 2022
6. The Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the
Cleaner of the vehicle has not stated or shown that the trays were available while
returning the vehicle. If the mangoes are carried in trays, then after dispatching
the mangoes, the trays should be available then only it can be concluded that they
have travelled after the delivery of mangoes, but no such evidence is available.
But this plea of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company was
vehemently opposed by the Learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and
relied on the deposition of RW 1 who is the Officer of the Insurance Company
who had also admitted that after the delivery of the goods, the owners of the
goods were travelling in the vehicle. The relevant portion of the deposition is
extracted hereunder:
“TN-55-K-6588 vd;w thfdj;jpy; ruf;F Vw;wp nfhz;L
nrd;wNghJ tpgj;J Vw;gl;lJ vd;W nrhd;dhy;
ruf;Ffis ,wf;fptpl;L tUk;NghJ tpgj;J ele;jJ. k.rh.M.1 Kjy;
jfty; mwpf;ifapy; khk;goq;fis ,wf;fp tpl;l fhyp $ilfSld;
jpUk;g te;jjhf $wg;gl;Ls;sjh vd;why; ,y;iy. kDjhuHfs; 3
NgUk; TN-55-K-6588 vd;w thfdj;jpy; NyhLNkd; Mf jhd; nrd;W
te;jhH vd;Wk; mjdhy; vq;fs; epWtdk; kDjhuHfSf;F ,og;gPL
toq;f flikg;gl;lJ vd;why; rhpay;y.”
Since the Insurance Company had admitted before the Tribunal, now the
Insurance Company cannot raise such plea. Further it is seen that the Insurance
Company has not substantiated the same through any evidence. Moreover, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)Nos.989 and 990 of 2022
mahazar was not marked. Therefore, the case of the Insurance Company cannot
be considered.
7. In C.M.A.(MD)No.989 of 2022, it is a case of injury and the award
amount is Rs.2,82,400/- with 7.5% interest and costs. In C.M.A.(MD)No.990 of
2022, it is also a case of injury and the award amount is Rs.3,45,200/- with 7.5%
interest. The award in both the cases are just and fair compensation. Therefore,
this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award. Therefore, the orders passed
by the Tribunal in the M.C.O.P.s are confirmed.
8. In C.M.A.(MD)No.989 of 2022, the appellant is directed to deposit Rs.
2,82,400/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and costs to the credit of
M.C.O.P., on the file of claims Tribunal, less the amount already deposited, if any,
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same with accrued
interests and costs, less the amount already withdrawn by him, if any, by filing
appropriate application before the Tribunal.
9. In C.M.A.(MD)No.990 of 2022, the appellant is directed to deposit Rs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)Nos.989 and 990 of 2022
3,45,200/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and costs to the credit of
M.C.O.P., on the file of claims Tribunal, less the amount already deposited, if any,
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same with accrued
interests and costs, less the amount already withdrawn by him, if any, by filing
appropriate application before the Tribunal.
10. Hence, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
04.03.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Tmg
Note: Issue order copy on 06.03.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)Nos.989 and 990 of 2022
To
1.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Special Sub Court), Madurai.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)Nos.989 and 990 of 2022
S.SRIMATHY, J.
Tmg
C.M.A(MD)Nos.989 and 990 of 2022
04.03.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
