Madras High Court
M/S.Icici Lombard Insurance Company ... vs Kasthuri on 18 October, 2024
Author: R.Hemalatha
Bench: R. Hemalatha
C.M.A.No.1224 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
C.M.A.No.1224 of 2022 and
C.M.P.No.8786 of 2022
M/s.ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Ltd.,
No.140, Nungambakkam High Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600 034. ... Appellant
vs.
1. Kasthuri
2. M.Gopi
3. M.Mohan
4. M.Baskar
5. M.Siranjeevi
6. A.Munusamy ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award, dated 25.08.2021 in
M.C.O.P.682/2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II
Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.
For Appellant : Mrs.R.Sreevidhya
For R1 to R5 : Mr.Dhamodaran Annamalai for
Ms.K.Sindhuja
For R6 : No appearance
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1224 of 2022
JUDGMENT
Questioning the liability to pay compensation awarded by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruvallur in M.C.O.P.682/2016, the
present appeal is filed by the appellant, the ICICI Lombard Insurance
Company Limited, Tiruvallur.
2. The respondents 1 to 5 filed the claim petition under Sections
166 of Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 3 of M.A.C.T. Rules, in
M.C.O.P.682/2016 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II
Additional District and Sessions Court, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee,
seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of one Munikrishnan
(wife of first claimant; father of claimants 2 to 5) in a road accident that
occurred on 11.10.2016.
3. The brief case of the claimants is as follows :
On 11.10.2016, Munikrishnan (deceased) was riding a
Motorcycle bearing Registration number TN-20-BX-7222 on
Thirunindravoor - Kottambedu road and at about 8.20 a.m., a speeding
Bolero Van bearing Registration number TN-05-AU-9340 hit the two
wheeler from behind, resulting in the instantaneous death of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Munikrishnan.
4. According to the claimants, the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the Bolero van was the cause of the accident and that since
the owner of the van had insured his vehicle with the appellant, the ICICI
Lombard Insurance Company Limited, the owner and the insurer are
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to them.
5. In the Tribunal, the owner of the Bolero van remained absent
and was set ex parte. The appellant, Insurance Company resisted the
claim petition on all the grounds available to the insurer under Section 170
of the Motor Vehicles Act.
6. The Tribunal after analysing the evidence on record, fastened
negligence on the part of the driver of the Bolero van and directed the
appellant Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- to the
claimants together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the
date of the petition till the date of realisation, vide its orders dated
25.08.2021. The Tribunal also held that the liability of the owner and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
insurer is joint and several.
7. Questioning the liability to pay compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the appellant / the ICICI Lombard
Insurance Company Limited under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
8. Heard Mrs.R.Sreevidhya, learned counsel for the appellant,
Insurance Company and Mr.Dhamodaran Annamalai, learned counsel for
the respondents 1 to 5, claimants.
9. Though notice was served on the sixth respondent, the owner
of the Bolero van and his name is also printed in the cause list, there is no
representation on his behalf.
10. Mrs.R.Sreevidhya, learned counsel for the appellant,
Insurance Company contended that since there was no privity of contract
between the owner of the van and the insurer, the Policy of insurance
produced by the owner of the Bolero van is not a genuine document. The
Tribunal though had come to the conclusion that it is a fake policy, had
directed the Insurance Company to pay the Award amount on the ground
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that the Insurance Company did not take any follow up action after
lodging a complaint (Ex.R1) with the Commissioner of Police, Chennai
against the sixth respondent, the owner of the Bolero van. She therefore
prayed for setting aside the orders of the Tribunal.
11. Per contra, Mr.Dhamodaran Annamalai, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents 1 to 5, claimants contended that the Tribunal
after analysing the evidence on record, directed the Insurance Company to
pay the award amount and therefore there is no need to interfere with the
same.
12. In the instant case, the Policy of insurance furnished by the
owner of the van pertains to a two wheeler bearing Registration number
TN 22 CY 2940. The Tribunal had in fact analysed this aspect and had
come to the conclusion that the policy of insurance produced by the owner
of the van is not a genuine document. The Insurance Company had also
lodged a complaint (Ex.R1) against the owner of the van with the
Commissioner of Police, Chennai. In the circumstances, the Insurance
company cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the claimant as
there is no privity of contract between the Insurance company and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
owner of the vehicle. Therefore the owner of the van has to pay the
compensation amount to the claimant.
15. In the result,
i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
ii. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is upheld.
iii. The sixth respondent, the owner of the Bolero van is directed to
deposit the entire compensation amount of Rs.6,00,000/- together
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim
petition till the date of realisation, within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy .
iv. of this order / uploading of this Order to the credit of
M.C.O.P.682/2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, II Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur at
Poonamallee.
v. On such deposit being made, the respondents 1 to 5, claimants are at
liberty to withdraw the same as per the orders passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tribunal after following due process of law. The ratio of
apportionment made by the Tribunal shall be kept intact.
vi. The appellant, Insurance Company can withdraw the compensation
amount, deposited by them in the Court.
18.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral citation : Yes / No
vum
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
II Additional District and Sessions Court,
Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.
2. The Section Officer, VR Section,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
R.HEMALATHA, J.
vum
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
