Madras High Court
Prejit Bellarmin vs Sundari on 4 September, 2024
C.M.A.(MD)No.322 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 04.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A(MD)No.322 of 2023
and C.M.P(MD)No.3965 of 2023
Prejit Bellarmin ... Appellant/1st Respondent
Vs.
1.Sundari
2.Vellaiamal
3.Vellaisamy
4.Rajesh
5.Gokila ...Respondents 1 to 5/Claimants
6.The Branch Manager,
HDFC-ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd.,
North Car Street,
Madurai. ...6th Respondent/2nd Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment dated 18.03.2022 passed
in M.C.O.P.No.55 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal(Principal District Court), Dindigul.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Venkatesh
For R1 to R5 : Mr.S.Pugalendhi
For R6 : Mr.V.Sakthivel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 6
C.M.A.(MD)No.322 of 2023
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed by the owner of the offending
vehicle challenging the finding of the Tribunal holding him liable to pay
compensation.
2. The manner of the accident and the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal are not in dispute.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
offending vehicle was a brand new car; that he had paid premium to the
dealer of the vehicle, who in turn, issued Form-20, in which, the name of
the insurer was shown as HDFC; that Ex.R.1 is a proposal form issued by
the HDFC-ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., for the offending
vehicle; and that since the car is insured, the appellant would not be
liable to pay compensation.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5/claimants 1 to 5
submitted that they have impleaded the 6th respondent since they were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
given to understand that the 6th respondent is the insurer of the offending
vehicle and hence, the Tribunal ought to have directed the 6th respondent
to pay compensation.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. The only point for consideration in the instant appeal is whether
the appellant would be liable to pay compensation.
7. The appellant had produced the copy of the Form-20 in the
typed set of papers filed along with the appeal. Admittedly, the said
document was not produced before the Tribunal. The appellant had
produced Ex.R.1, which is said to the proposal form issued by the 6th
respondent herein. It is the case of the appellant that the premium was
paid through the dealer. It is not possible from the proposal form Ex.R.1
or from Form-20 to infer that the premium was paid to the 6 th respondent
herein. The dealer was not made a party before the Tribunal. If it is a case
of the appellant that the dealer had received premium, they ought to have
taken steps to implead the dealer. However, in the interest of all the
parties concerned, including the claimants, this Court is of the view that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
one more opportunity may be given to the appellant to establish that the
premium was paid to the 6th respondent through the dealer. For such
purpose, it is open to the appellant to implead the dealer or any other
party, who would be necessary for adjudication of the said issue.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is inclined to remit back to
the Tribunal for the limited purpose of deciding the above issue. The
question with regard to negligence and quantum of compensation is not
under challenge and therefore, the parties cannot re-agitate those issues
before the Tribunal.
9. Accordingly, the finding that the appellant is liable to pay
compensation alone is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the
Tribunal for the limited purpose of deciding the following issue:
'Whether the appellant or anyone else would be liable
to pay compensation?'
The Tribunal, after giving opportunity to the parties concerned and on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
evidence adduced by them, shall take a decision within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment without being
influenced by any of the observations made in this order.
10. This appeal is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently,
the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.09.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
CM
To
1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Principal District Court),
Dindigul.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
CM
Judgment made in
04.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
