Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Rosili on 3 September, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) No.1872 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.1872 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2013
The Branch Manager,
Represented by
National Insurance Company Limited,
Nagercoil Branch, North Car Street,
Nagercoil & Post. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Rosili
W/o.Muthusamy
2.Minor Werlin
C/o.Rosili
Represented through her grandmother
& guardian Rosili, the first respondent
3.S.Subeen
S/o.Sudhir
4.V.B.Ramesh Kumar,
S/o.Balakrishnan Nair ... Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 7
C.M.A.(MD) No.1872 of 2013
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Kuzhithurai, in M.C.O.P.No.
28 of 2006 dated 20.02.2012.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Sivaraman
For R1 & R2 : No appearance
For R4 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the finding of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Sub
Court], Kuzhithurai holding that the appellant, Insurance Company, is
liable to pay compensation.
2. The first and second respondents filed a claim petition before the
Tribunal stating that on 08.01.2005, while they were walking on the road,
a two-wheeler insured with the appellant, Insurance Company, came in a
rash and negligent manner and caused grievous injuries to them.
3. The rider of the two-wheeler, namely, the third respondent
herein, filed a counter before the Tribunal denying the averments made in
the claim petition.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The fourth respondent herein, the owner of the vehicle, remained
ex parte before the Tribunal.
5. The appellant, Insurance Company, filed a counter before the
Tribunal stating that the accident took place only due to the negligence of
the first and second respondents/claimants and that the rider of the two-
wheeler did not have a valid driving licence, and therefore, the appellant
was not liable to pay compensation.
6. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence, held that the first respondent/first claimant is
entitled to Rs.26,500/- and the second respondent/second claimant is
entitled to Rs.53,700/-, totalling Rs.80,200/-.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant, Insurance Company,
submitted that since the Tribunal held that the rider of the two-wheeler did
not possess a valid driving licence, the appellant ought to have been
exonerated. The learned counsel fairly submitted that they are not
questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. The only question involved in the instant appeal is whether the
appellant, Insurance Company, should be fully exonerated from the
payment of compensation.
9. This Court, on perusal of the award of the Tribunal, finds that the
Tribunal held on facts that the rider of the insured two-wheeler did not
have a valid driving licence. The Tribunal also held that the appellant
should satisfy the award in the first instance and thereafter recover the
same from the owner. In view of the settled position of law that even if
there is a violation of the terms of the contract of insurance, the Insurance
Company can be directed to pay the compensation and thereafter recover
from the owner, this Court finds no infirmity in the award of the Tribunal.
Hence, the award is confirmed.
10. The appellant, Insurance Company, is directed to deposit the
compensation of Rs.80,200/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum
from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization and costs,
after deducting the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of 4
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. On such deposit, the first respondent/first claimant is permitted
to withdraw her share along with proportionate interest and costs, less the
amount already withdrawn, if any, by filing a suitable application before
the Tribunal.
12. The second respondent/second claimant was minor at the time
of filing of the claim petition in 2005. It is noticed that he would have
now attained majority. Therefore, the second respondent/second claimant
is permitted to file an application before the Tribunal to record his
majority and to withdraw his share along with proportionate interest and
costs.
13. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
03.09.2024
Index: Yes/ No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
JEN
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Copy To:
1.The Sub Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Kuzhithurai,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras high Court,
Madurai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
JEN
03.09.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
