Madras High Court
Tata Aig General Insurance Company ... vs M.Abimannan @ Sathish on 8 November, 2024
Author: M. Dhandapani
Bench: M. Dhandapani
C.M.A.No.691 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI
C.M.A.No.691 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No.5991 of 2018
Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited,
Jaya Enclave, 3rd Floor, No.1057,
Avinashi Road, Coimbatore. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.M.Abimannan @ Sathish
2.K.Murugan (Driver of the car)
3.K.Palani (Owner of the car)
4.G.David ... Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and judgment dated 08.11.2017 in
M.C.O.P.No.2977 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Court of Special Sub-Judge), Krishnagiri.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Vinod
For R1 : Mr.T.Nirmaleswar
For R2 : Mr.P.M.Jayachandran
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.691 of 2018
For R3 and R4 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the judgment and
decree dated 08.11.2017 in M.C.O.P.No.2977 of 2013 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Court of Special Sub-Judge), Krishnagiri
(hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for brevity).
2.Brief facts of the case are as follows :
On 02.05.2012 at about 05.30 p.m., when the 1 st respondent, who is
admittedly the borrower of the two wheeler (Bajaj Discover) bearing
Reg.No.TN-24-K-4146, belonging to the 4th respondent and insured with the
appellant Insurance Company, was proceeding from Vaniyambadi to
Kandhikuppam Village in Bargur-Kandhikuppam Road, slowly and
carefully on the extreme left side of the road, near BRG Madepalli
Mariyamman Temple, an Ambassdar Car bearing Reg.No.TN-24-B-9537,
owned by the 3rd respondent and driven by the 2nd respondent, came in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the 1 st
respondent. Due to the said impact, the 1 st respondent sustained grievous
injuries. The Kandikuppam Police registered a case against the 2nd
respondent/driver of the Car in Crime No.131 of 2012 under Section 279
and 337 IPC. Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed a claim petition in
M.C.O.P.No.2977 of 2013 before the Tribunal for compensation of
Rs.7,00,000/- under various heads.
3.Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/claimant examined himself
as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P10. On the side of the respondents, an
official of the appellant Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and
Ex.R1 was marked. The Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board
was marked as Ex.C1.
4.The Tribunal, on considering the oral and documentary evidence on
either side, by judgment and decree dated 08.11.2017, awarded a sum of
Rs.1,91,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of claim petition,
and directed the appellant Insurance Company to pay the award amount and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
recover the same from the respondents 2 and 3.
5.Challenging the liability fastened on the appellant Insurance
Company, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.
6.Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance company submitted
that, admittedly, the claimant is the borrower of the two wheeler from the 4 th
respondent. The learned counsel would submit that the two wheeler insured
with the appellant Insurance Company, which was driven by the claimant,
was not at all involved in the accident. The two wheeler was in fact dashed
by the Ambassador Car driven by the 2 nd respondent and owned by the 3rd
respondent. The learned counsel further submitted that the FIR is also
registered as against the 2nd respondent, driver of the Car. However, the
entire liability has been fastened as against the appellant Insurance
Company, which is impermissible. The learned counsel would submit that
the Tribunal, having found that the accident was caused by the Car driven
by the 2nd respondent and owned by the 3rd respondent, ought not to have
fastened the liability on the appellant who is the insurer of the two wheeler
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and directed them to recover the amount from the respondents 2 and 3,
especially when there is no contract between the appellant Insurance
Company and the respondents 2 and 3. Hence, the learned counsel prays
for allowing this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
7.Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents did not
dispute the fact that the claimant is the borrower of the two-wheeler from the
4th respondent which was insured with the appellant Insurance Company.
However, the learned counsel submitted that, since the respondents 2 and 3
did not possess valid Insurance for the Ambassador Car at the time of
accident, the Tribunal directed the appellant Insurance Company to pay the
entire compensation and thereafter, recover the same from the respondents 2
and 3, which finding does not warrant interference. Therefore, the learned
counsel pray for dismissal of this Appeal.
8.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and
the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials
available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9.It is admitted that the accident was solely due to the negligence of
the 2nd respondent/driver of the Car. The FIR also is registered as against the
driver of the Car. When the Tribunal has specifically held that the accident
was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the Car, the Tribunal ought
not to have fastened the liability on the appellant Insurance Company, which
is the insurer of the two wheeler which is admittedly driven by the 1 st
respondent claimant not at all involved in the accident and ordered recovery
from the respondents 2 and 3, particularly when there is no contract between
the appellant Insurance Company and the respondents 2 and 3. If at all
there is a contract between the appellant Insurance Company and the owner
of the two wheeler/4th respondent, when admittedly the fault is not on the
part of the driver of the two wheeler, but solely on the driver of the Car, the
finding of the Tribunal fastening the liability on the appellant Insurance
Company, is unsustainable.
10.Therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
finding of the Tribunal directing the appellant Insurance Company to pay
the award amount and thereafter, recover the same from the respondents 2
and 3, is set aside. However, the Award of the Tribunal remains unaltered
in all other aspects. Liberty is granted to the 1 st respondent/claimant to
recover the amount awarded by the Tribunal from the respondents 2 and 3,
in the manner known to law. The appellant Insurance Company is permitted
to withdraw the entire amount along already deposited with interest, if any,
on making proper and necessary application before the Tribunal. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.11.2024
mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Court of Special Sub-Judge),
Krishnagiri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
mkn
08.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
