Madras High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Chinnu on 31 October, 2024
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 31.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.M.A.No.97 of 2018
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
I Floor, 5-F, Sachin Plaza,
Reddiyur, Salem-18. ... Appellant
Vs
1. Chinnu
2. C.Selvaraj
3. Lalitha
4. V.Jayaraman ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed against the Judgment and
decree dated 04.02.2017 in MCOP No.1548 of 2012 passed by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal/Special Court, Salem.
For appellant : Mr.S.Dhakshinamoorthy
For respondent : Mr.P.Jayadeesan RR1 to 3
R4 – No appearance
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the Insurance company questioning
the liability in the Judgment and decree dated 04.02.2017 in MCOP
No.1548 of 2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Special
Court, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. It is the case of the claimant that on 01.03.2012, the deceased
and others were travelled in the auto bearing Reg. No.TN 54 B 9777 as a
passenger near Valapady – Somampatty school, at that time, a car was
came from the backside of the Auto in a rash and negligent manner. All
of a sudden, the car hit against the auto and dashed against the backside
of the auto and caused accident and run away from the place of accident,
resulting the auto was capsized on a odai, the deceased was fell down
from the auto and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, the deceased
was admitted in the hospital and died. Thereafter, the dependents of the
deceased, who are the husband and children, have filed a claim petition
before the Tribunal claiming compensation.
3. In order to prove his claim, the claimants have examined 2
witnesses viz., P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked 7 documents viz., Ex.P1 to
Ex.P7. On the side of the insurance company, two witnesses were
examined and four documents were adduced. After analyzing the
evidences, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,79,000/- as
compensation.
4. Questioning the negligence on the part of the appellant, they
have come forward with this appeal before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company
submitted that as per the FIR registered by the concerned police based on
the deceased person that one unknown car was hit the auto. Therefore, the
Tribunal has erred in fastening the negligence on the driver of the auto,
when the FIR was filed against the unknown driver of the car, the
insurance company is not liable to compensate the claimants. Further, the
Tribunal failed to appreciate that when the payment of insurance
premium by cheque was dishonoured. In support of his contention, the
learned counsel relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs.
Laxmamma and others reported in MANU/SC/0314/2012. For better
appreciation, the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
''19. In our view, the legal position is this: where the
policy of insurance is issued by an authorized insurer on
receipt of cheque towards payment of premium and such
cheque is returned dishonoured, the liability of authorized
insurer to indemnify third parties in respect of the liability
which that policy covered subsists and it has to satisfy
award of compensation by reason of the provisions of
Sections 147(5) and 149(1) of the M.V. Act unless the
policy of insurance is cancelled by the authorized insurer
and intimation of such cancellation has reached the insured
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
before the accident. In other words, where the policy of
insurance is issued by an authorized insurer to cover a
vehicle on receipt of the cheque paid towards premium and
the cheque gets dishonored and before the accident of the
vehicle occurs, such insurance company cancels the policy
of insurance and sends intimation thereof to the owner, the
insurance company''s liability to indemnify the third parties
which that policy covered ceases and the insurance
company is not liable to satisfy awards of compensation in
respect thereof.
20. Having regard to the above legal position,
insofar as facts of the present case are concerned, the
owner of the bus obtained policy of insurance from the
insurer for the period April 16, 2004 to April 15, 2005 for
which premium was paid through cheque on April 14,
2004. The accident occurred on May 11, 2004. It was only
thereafter that the insurer cancelled the insurance policy by
communication dated May 13, 2004 on the ground of
dishonour of cheque which was received by the owner of
the vehicle on May 21, 2004. The cancellation of policy
having been done by the insurer after the accident, the
insurer became liable to satisfy award of compensation
passed in favour of the claimants.
21. In view of the above, the judgment of the High
Court impugned in the appeal does not call for any
interference. Civil appeal is dismissed. However, the
insurer shall be at liberty to prosecute its remedy to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
recover the amount paid to the claimants from the insured.
No order as to costs.''
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1
& 2/claimants submitted that on the basis of the evidence adduced, the
Tribunal has awarded compensation, which is just and fair and the same
does not warrant any interference.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the
respondents and also perused the materials available on record before this
Court.
8. The factum of the case are not in dispute. The manner of the
accident is also not in dispute. The only issue that arises for consideration
is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under various heads, according to the claimant, which is highly excessive.
9. The Tribunal has found that the accident had happened only due
to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, for which, the
Tribunal has rightly applied pay and recovery method, which cannot be
interfered with. Further, the age of the deceased is 30 years at the time of
the accident and the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of Rs.3000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
per months and adopted 17 multiplier, which is perfectly in order. The
Tribunal has elaborately discussed the issue and rightly passed award
under the head ''loss of income'' and other heads awarded by the Tribunal
is also just and reasonable, which needs no interference. Further, the
decision referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not
applicable in the present case. The Tribunal has found that the accident
had happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the lorry, for which, the Tribunal has rightly applied ''pay and recovery''
method, which cannot be interfered with.
10. With the above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed. No
costs. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed and the
appellant is directed to pay compensation as awarded by the Tribunal to
the claimant with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till
the date of realization, within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, recover the same from the
owner of the lorry. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed
to transfer the amount to the bank account of the claimants through
RTGS within a period of two weeks thereafter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 31.10.2023
Index : Yes/no
Internet : Yes/no
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.DHANDAPANI.,J.
rli
31.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
