Madras High Court
A.Mohamed Sadhik vs P.Kesavan on 11 September, 2024
C.M.A.(MD) No.1072 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.1072 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.11142 of 2024
A.Mohamed Sadhik
S/o.Abdul Razak ... Appellant
Vs.
1.P.Kesavan
S/o.Palaniandi
2.Branch Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Shalini Towers, 1st Floor, 172,
South Main Street,
Thanjavur District. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.303 of
2021 dated 31.03.2023 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
[Special Sub Court], Thanjavur insofar as it relates to pay the
compensation amount by the second respondent and recover it from the
appellant is concerned.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Muthugeethayan
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 7
C.M.A.(MD) No.1072 of 2024
For R1 : Mr.G.Karnan
For R2 : Mr.V.Sakthivel
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed by the owner of the insured
vehicle aggrieved by the direction of the Tribunal to the second
respondent, Insurance Company, to pay the compensation and recover the
same from the appellant, as there was a breach of policy conditions.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the claim petition and the
manner of the accident are not in dispute. The quantum of compensation
is also not in dispute. Therefore, the facts leading to the filing of the claim
petition are unnecessary for the disposal of this appeal.
3. The learned counsel on either side submitted that the second
respondent, Insurance Company, has already deposited the entire amount
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, and the first respondent/
claimant has also withdrawn the said amount.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The learned counsel for the appellant, the owner of the insured
vehicle, submitted that in the counter to the claim petition, the appellant
has stated that since he had already sold the vehicle to one Anwar Sadhik,
S/o.Akbar Ali, he could not produce the driving licence of the driver of
the insured vehicle with whom he has no connection; that the Tribunal
had merely relied on the endorsement made in the Motor Vehicle
Inspector's Report to the effect that the driving licence was not produced
and held that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence,
which is contrary to the settled position of law; and that the burden is on
the Insurance Company to establish the said fact and hence, the appellant
may be given an opportunity to establish before the Tribunal that the
vehicle was already sold to the third party and the driver had a valid
driving licence.
5. The learned counsel for the second respondent, Insurance
Company, per contra, submitted that the appellant ought to have examined
the transferee and should have taken steps to make him a party before the
Tribunal and, in any case, should have produced the driving licence of the
driver, and that in the absence of the same, the issue cannot be raised in
this appeal.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. The only point for consideration in the instant appeal is whether
the second respondent had established that there was a breach of policy
conditions and the direction to pay and recover is justified.
7. The counter filed by the appellant before the Tribunal shows that
the insured vehicle was already sold as early as 02.11.2017. The appellant
has produced the delivery receipt, which is said to have been issued to the
said Anwar Sadhik. However, the same has not been marked before the
Tribunal. Admittedly, the vehicle still stands in the name of the appellant,
and hence, he cannot be exonerated if the driver did not have a valid
driving licence. The finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the insured
vehicle did not have a valid driving licence is based on the endorsement
made by the Motor Vehicle Inspector in his report. In the light of the
evidence, this Court is of the view that one more opportunity should be
given to the appellant to establish that the driver of the insured vehicle
had a valid licence. For this purpose, it is open for the appellant to
implead the transferee and the driver of the insured vehicle whose name
was found in the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report and any other
necessary party for the said purpose. It is also made clear that if it is
established that the driver did not have a valid driving licence, the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellant would be liable to pay the compensation and take appropriate
proceedings against the transferee in accordance with law.
8. Thus, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal only for the
limited purpose of deciding the above issue. The finding on negligence
and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal are confirmed.
It is also open for the second respondent, Insurance Company, to adduce
further evidence, if necessary, to prove that there was no valid driving
licence.
9. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
11.09.2024
Index: Yes/ No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
JEN
Note: Registry is directed to return the original records to
the Tribunal.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Copy To:
1.The Special Subordinate Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Thanjavur,
Thanjavur 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
and
11.09.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
