Madras High Court
Reliance General Insurance Company ... vs G. Renuka on 23 October, 2024
Author: R.Hemalatha
Bench: R. Hemalatha
CMA.No.2393 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
C.M.A.No.2393 of 2024 and
C.M.P. No.18992 of 2024
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Motor Third Party Claims,
No.66, Haddows Road
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 035 ... Appellant
vs.
1.G. Renuka
2. B. Nirmala
3. K. Shanthi
4. A. Jayanthi
5. T. Vedhagiri ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 30.01.2023 in
M.C.O.P.4981/2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
III Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr. G. Vasudevan
For R1 to R4 : Mr. L. Monish
for Mr.I. Mohan Rao
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.2393 of 2024
R5 : No appearance.
JUDGMENT
The appellant, the Reliance General Insurance Company
Limited, Chennai, is the second respondent in M.C.O.P.4981/2018 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
2. The respondents 1 to 4 filed the abovesaid claim petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 3 of MACT Rules
seeking compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- for the death of their mother
Ethirajammal in a road accident that occurred on 12.04.2015.
3. According to the claimants, on 12.04.2015, Ethirajammal
(since deceased) was walking along Manampathy-Eachur Road and at
about 19.00 hours, a speeding motorcycle bearing Registration Number
TN-21-LO-2675 hit her as a result of which she sustained injuries all over
her body. She was immediately rushed to Vijaya hospital, Chennai.
However, she succumbed to injuries on 21.04.2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. According to the claimants, the rash and negligent driving of
the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration Number TN-21-LO-2675
was the cause of accident and that since the said vehicle was insured with
the present appellant, the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Chennai, the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to them.
5. In the Tribunal, the owner of the motorcycle remained absent
and was set exparte. 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 rider of the motorcycle bearing
Registration Number TN-21-LO-2675 and directed the appellant to pay
compensation of Rs.6,48,500/- to the claimants together with interest at
the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realisation. The Tribunal further held that the liability of the owner of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
two wheeler and the insurance company is joint and several.
7. Aggrieved over the orders passed by the Tribunal, the present
appeal is filed by the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited.
8. Heard Mr. G. Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and Mr.L. Monish, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 to 4. Though the fifth respondent, the owner of the
motorcycle was served with notice and his name was also printed in the
cause list, he did not appear before this Court either in person or through
a counsel.
9. Mr. G. Vasudevan, learned counsel for the appellants
Insurance Company contended that though the rider of the two wheeler
did not possess a valid driving licence on the date of accident, the
Tribunal did not give the right to recover the award amount from the
owner of the vehicle after paying the same to the claimants (Pay and
Recover). He therefore prayed to set aside the order of the Tribunal.
10. It is seen from the records that though the Insurance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Company issued notice to the owner of the two wheeler to produce the
driving licene, he did not produce the same. A perusal of the Motor
Vehicle Inspector's Report shows that the owner of the two wheeler did
not produce his driving licence before the Inspector at the time of
inspection of the vehicle. In the circumstances, the appellant Insurance
Company is directed to pay the Award amount to the claimants in the first
instance and then recover the same from the owner of the two wheeler
under the same cause of action.
11. There is no dispute with regard to the quantum of
compensation. A perusal of the records shows that the Tribunal has
awarded just compensation to the claimants.
12. In the result,
i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
ii. The appellant/Insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of
Rs.6,48,500/- (less the amount already deposited) with interest at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the
date of deposit, in the first instance, within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order/uploading of this
order, to the credit of M.C.O.P.4981/2018 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Small Causes Court, Chennai,
and then recover the same from the fifth respondent, the owner of
the motorcycle bearing Registration Number TN-21-LO-2675.
iii. On such deposit being made, the respondents 1 to 4 / claimants
are at liberty to withdraw the same after filing a proper petition for
withdrawal.
23.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
bga
To
1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.HEMALATHA, J.
bga
C.M.A.No.2393 of 2024 and
23.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
