Madras High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd vs K.Rajeshwari on 1 October, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) No.529 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.529 of 2018
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.6242 of 2018
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,
1st Floor, Gee Jay Arcade,
141/71, T.V.Samy Road,
West R.S.Puram, Coimbatore 641 002. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.K.Rajeshwari
W/o.Kunjappan
2.K.Sutha
D/o.Kunjappan
3.K.Latha
D/o.Kunjappan
4.K.Rajkumar
S/o.Kunjappan
5.K.Kavitha
D/o.Kunjappan
6.A.Vellaiyan ... Respondents
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 9
C.M.A.(MD) No.529 of 2018
Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
14.03.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.2712 of 2013 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Sessions Judge/Mahila Court/Special District
Judge), Trichy.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Sakthivel
For R1 to R5 : Mr.H.Arumugam
For R6 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the award of the Tribunal on liability.
2. The first to fifth respondents herein filed a claim petition before
the Tribunal stating that on 22.01.2009, at about 5:00 p.m., while the
deceased was riding a two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-46-
C-1296, which belonged to the sixth respondent, along with one Radha
Krishnan as a pillion rider, to collect money from one Paramasivam, a
cow suddenly crossed the road from left to right and to avoid hitting the
cow, the deceased swerved the two-wheeler to his right, went into a
nearby ditch, and sustained fatal injuries.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The owner of the vehicle, namely, the sixth respondent herein,
remained ex parte before the Tribunal.
4. The appellant, the Insurance Company, filed a counter stating
that the deceased was the tortfeasor; that the claim made by the legal
representatives of the deceased was not maintainable; and that in any case,
the compensation claimed was excessive.
5. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined two witnesses as
P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Exs.P1 and P2, and the appellant examined
two witnesses as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and marked Ex.R1. The letter of the
RTO, Tiruchirappalli dated 19.01.2016 was marked as Ex.X1.
6. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence, held that the claim petition filed under Section
163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was maintainable and awarded a
total compensation of Rs.7,45,000/-.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant, Insurance Company,
submitted that the deceased was the borrower of the vehicle, and since he
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
stepped into the shoes of the owner, the claim under Section 163(A) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was not maintainable; and that the claimants
were not even entitled to the personal accident cover, as the deceased did
not have a valid driving licence, and relied upon the Judgment of this
Court in The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Tamilarasi and others, rendered on 27.03.2023 in C.M.A.(MD) No.
195 of 2017, to support of his submission that where the deceased was a
borrower and did not have a valid driving licence, his/her legal
representatives are not entitled to the personal accident cover.
8. The learned counsel for the first to fifth respondents, per contra,
submitted that the deceased was employed under the sixth respondent and
hence the claim petition was maintainable and the award of the Tribunal
has to be confirmed.
9. The notice sent to the sixth respondent was returned with an
endorsement 'refused'. This Court is of the view that hence, the notice is
deemed to have been served on the sixth respondent.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. The only point for consideration in the instant appeal is whether
the appellant is liable to pay any compensation.
11. Admittedly, no other vehicle was involved in the accident. The
deceased fell off his two-wheeler when he took a sharp turn towards a
ditch since a cow suddenly crossed the road. In the claim petition, it is
stated that the deceased went along with a pillion rider to collect money
from one Pramasivan, who owed money to the sixth respondent herein,
the owner of the vehicle. However, in Ex.P1, the FIR lodged by P.W.2,
the pillion rider, it is stated that they went to Trichy for purchasing dress
materials. That apart, in the claim petition, the occupation of the deceased
was shown as 'running a dairy unit and doing real estate business' and the
name of the employer was simply shown as 'Agriculture Gardener', and
but the sixth respondent was not referred to as his employer. Therefore,
this Court is of the view that the deceased can only be construed as the
borrower of the vehicle as there is no evidence to prove that he was
employed under the sixth respondent. It is settled law that a claim petition
filed by the legal representatives of a borrower of the vehicle, who has
stepped into the shoes of the owner, would not be maintainable under
Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. As regards the personal accident cover, it is seen that the
appellant had established before the Tribunal that the deceased did not
have a valid driving licence by examining R.W.1, the Junior Assistant of
the Srirangam RTO office. R.W.1 has stated that no driving licence was
issued to the deceased in his office. However, he has deposed that if the
deceased had provided a different address, he could have obtained a
driving licence from a different RTO office. It cannot be presumed that
the deceased would have obtained a valid driving licence from some other
RTO office. When the Insurance Company had examined R.W.1, the
claimants ought to have produced the driving licence if the deceased had
indeed possessed one. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the
appellant had established before the Tribunal that the deceased did not
have a valid driving licence.
13. This Court in Tamilarasi case (supra) relied upon by the
learned counsel for the appellant, held that unless the owner/borrower of
the vehicle is holding a valid driving licence, the question of invoking
personal accident cover would not arise. This Court had relied upon an
earlier Judgment of this Court in Divisional Manager, Oriental
Insurance Company Limited, Vellore Vs. R.Damodharan and another,
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
reported in 2020 (1) TN MAC 646, while taking that view. In view of the
above, this Court is of the view that the award of the Tribunal is liable to
be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
14. However, it is open to the first to fifth respondents/claimants to
approach the appropriate forum for claiming personal accident cover if
they are able to establish that the deceased had a valid driving licence.
15. It is reported by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
appellant has deposited the entire compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Therefore, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same together with
interest accrued thereon by filing an application before the Tribunal.
16. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No
costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
01.10.2024
Index: Yes/ No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
JEN
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Copy To:
1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,
(Special District Judge),
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Trichy.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
JEN
and
01.10.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
