Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Manickam
2024 Latest Caselaw 19317 Mad

Madras High Court

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Manickam on 16 October, 2024

                                                                     C.M.A.(MD) No.1311 of 2024

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED : 16.10.2024

                                                     CORAM

                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                            C.M.A.(MD) No.1311 of 2024
                                                      and
                                            C.M.P.(MD)No.14086 of 2024


                    Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                    No.10003/E-8,
                    RIICO Industrial Area,
                    Sitapura, Jaipur,
                    Rajasthan 302 022.                                      ... Appellant


                                                       Vs.

                    1.Manickam,
                    2.Maharajan,
                    3.Vanumamalai,
                    4.Indira,
                    5.Subbulakshmi,
                    6.Nambi Nachiyar,
                    7.Balasubramanian.                                      ... Respondents


                    Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                    Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgement and decree dated 01.08.2011
                    passed in M.C.O.P.No.737 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accidents
                    Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court/Fast Track
                    Court-I, Tirunelveli.


                    _____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                    Page No. 1 of 6
                                                                          C.M.A.(MD) No.1311 of 2024



                                    For Appellant       : Mr.S.Srinivas Raghavan

                                    For Respondents : Dispensed with

                                                           *****

                                                    JUDGMENT

The appeal has been preferred by the insurance company

challenging the finding on liability.

2. The respondents 1 to 6 herein had filed a claim petition stating

that while the deceased was riding his motor cycle, a tractor insured with

appellant came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the

deceased, as a result of which the deceased sustained fatal injuries.

3. The owner of the vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal.

4. The appellant filed a counter stating that the tractor driver did not

have a valid licence; and that since there was a violation of the policy

condition, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation.

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and

documentary evidence, held that there was a violation of policy condition

inasmuch as the driver of the tractor did not have a valid licence and

directed the appellant to pay compensation at the first instance and

recover it from the owner of the tractor.

6. In view of the order this Court proposes to pass, notice to the

respondents is dispensed with.

7. The only point for consideration in the instant appeal is ‘whether

the finding of the Tribunal directing the appellant to pay and recover the

compensation is justified?’

8. The finding on negligence and the quantum of compensation is

not in dispute. According to the appellant, since the driver did not have a

valid licence, it would amount a fundamental breach and there cannot be

given a direction to pay and recover. The appellant had established the

fact that the driver of the insured vehicle did not possess a valid licence by

examining R.W.1-RTO, who issued a letter-Ex.R1 to that effect. It is well

settled that in case of violation of policy condition, namely, that driver of

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the insured vehicle did not possess a valid licence, the insurer can be

directed to pay and recover the compensation from the owner of the

vehicle. Therefore, the direction of the Tribunal to the appellant to pay the

compensation at the first instance and thereafter recover it from the owner

cannot be faulted. Hence, the award of the Tribunal deserves to be

confirmed.

9. The appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay

Rs.3,20,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Twenty Thousand only), together

with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of

realization and proportionate costs, less the amount already deposited, if

any, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order.

10. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 6/claimants are permitted

to withdraw their share amount with interest and costs, as per the

apportionment fixed by the Tribunal, less the amount already withdrawn,

if any, by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal.

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

11. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed,

without being admitted. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petition is closed.

16.10.2024 Index: Yes/ No NCC: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order apd

To:

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District and Sessions Court/Fast Track Court-I, Tirunelveli.

2.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

apd

16.10.2024

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis