Madras High Court
The Regional Manager vs Arumugam on 2 September, 2024
Author: R. Hemalatha
Bench: R. Hemalatha
C.M.A.No.1225 of 2024
and C.M.P.No.10961 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
CMA.No.1225 of 2024
and
C.M.P.No.10961 of 2024
The Regional Manager,
The United India Insurance Company,
No.35, AR Plaza, 45 Feet Road, Balaji Nagar,
Saram, Puducherry - 605 011. ...Appellant
.Vs.
1.Arumugam
2.Mummurthi ...Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 20.11.2023 in
M.C.O.P.470 of 2022 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) at Puducherry.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy
For R1 : Mr.R.Sreedhar
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.1225 of 2024
and C.M.P.No.10961 of 2024
JUDGMENT
The appellant, the United India Insurance Company Limited is
the second respondent in M.C.O.P.470 of 2022 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal)
at Puducherry. The first respondent filed the above said claim petition
under Section 166 (1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation
of Rs.30,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him, in a road accident that
took place on 22.07.2021.
2. The brief case of the claimant is as follows:
On 22.07.2021, the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider in
his motorcycle bearing Registration Number PY-01-BF-7350 on
Kumbakonam - Chennai Road near V.Agaram bus stop, Villupuram
District. The second respondent drove the vehicle rashly and negligently, as
a result of which, the motorcycle fell down in a pit and the claimant
sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately rushed to PIMS Hospital,
Ganapathichettikulam, where he was treated as an inpatient till 30.07.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. According to the claimant, the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the motorcycle was the cause of the accident and therefore, the
Insurance Company with whom the claimant has insured the vehicle is
liable to pay compensation to him.
4. In the Tribunal, the second respondent remained absent and
was set ex parte. The appellant, the United India Insurance Company
contested the claim petition on all the grounds available to the insurer under
Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
5. The Tribunal after analysing the evidence on record, held that
the claimant being the owner of the insured motorcycle cannot be treated as
a third party irrespective of whether he was travelling as a passenger or a
pillion rider. However, as the claimant had paid additional premium of
Rs.275/- for Personal Accident Coverage to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-, he
can maintain the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act. Therefore, the Tribunal proceeded to compute the compensation
amount and awarded a sum of Rs.3,46,000/- to the claimant and directed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Insurance Company to pay the said amount to him together with interest
at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization, vide its orders dated 20.11.2023.
6. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal is filed by the
appellant, Insurance Company.
7. Heard Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr.R.Sreedhar, learned counsel for the first respondent.
8. Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
M/s.Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Madurai vs.
Shanmugam in C.M.A.No.1395 of 2021 and contended that an owner /
insurer cannot approach the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by filing a
claim petition for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident for getting
the amount under Personal Accident Coverage. He therefore, prayed for
setting aside the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. Per contra Mr.R.Sreedhar, learned counsel for the claimant
contended that the Tribunal had granted compensation of Rs.3,46,000/-
since the owner had personal accident coverage to the tune of
Rs.15,00,000/-. Therefore, he prayed for dismissing the present appeal.
10. In the decision in M/s.Tata AIG General Insurance
Company Limited, Madurai vs. Shanmugam (cited supra) based on the
reference made by a single judge of this Court the Division Bench had held
as follows :
"25. The question before us is whether a claim
petition can be filed before the Claims Tribunal under Section
163A by an owner/insured. Considering the language of
Chapter XI and the decision in Ramkhiladi's case, the first
question is answered against the claimant by observing that an
owner/insurer cannot approach the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal by filing a claim petition under Section 163A of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the injuries sustained by him
relying upon the personal accident cover. This does not
prevent the owner of a vehicle, who has taken a personal
accident cover, from claiming compensation from his insurer.
However, the Claims Tribunal is not the Forum, before which
he can make his claim, as he is not a Third Party. It is open to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the owner of the vehicle to directly approach the insurer on the
basis of the personal accident cover. In case, the Insurance
Company fails to compensate him, it is well open to him to
approach the Consumer Forum or any other appropriate
Forum. In view of the answer to the first question as referred
to us, the second question does not arise for consideration."
11. The claimant, the owner of the vehicle should have directly
approached the Insurance Company on the basis of the personal accident
cover. The Insurance Company, if, fails to compensate him, it is open to
him to approach the consumer forum or any other appropriate forum. He
cannot maintain a claim petition either under Section 163(A) or 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for personal accident cover.
Therefore, the present appeal stands allowed.
12. In the result,
i. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ii. The decree and judgment dated 20.11.2023 in M.C.O.P.470 of 2022
on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Additional
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) at Puducherry, is set aside.
iii. The appellant, Insurance Company is exonerated from paying the
compensation amount and they are at liberty to withdraw the
compensation amount, if already deposited by them.
02.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
mtl
To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) at Puducherry.
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R. HEMALATHA, J.
mtl
02.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
