Madras High Court
The Divisional Manager vs A.Benjamin Francies on 19 September, 2024
C.M.A.No.827 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 19.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
C.M.A.No.827 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.4776 of 2021
The Divisional Manager,
New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Division Office,
Bharathi Road,
Cuddalore.
... Appellant
Versus
1.A.Benjamin Francies.
2.Muthukumaran ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order in M.C.O.P.No.2315 of 2009, dated
16.12.2013, on the file of the Motor accident Claims Tribunal, I
Additional Sub Court, Cuddalore.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.827 of 2021
For RR1 : M/s.Ramya Rao
For R2 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
The Civil Miscellaneous appeal arises out of the decree and judgment
dated 16.12.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.2315 of 2009, on the file of
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, I Additional Sub Court, Cuddalore.
2.The 1st respondent herein is the claimant in the above claim
petition. He filed the above application under Section 166(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') with the contention that on
20.06.2009 the claimant was traveling as pillion rider in a motor cycle
bearing Registration No.TN 31 K 8076 which was driven by one
Murugan. They were proceeding from west to east on the extreme left of
Sribushnam to Palayankottai road. At about 7.30 P.m when the motor
cycle was proceeding near Thethampattu Colony Bus Stop, the 2nd
respondent's driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and
hit the petitioner's motor cycle and caused the accident. As a result, the
petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Due to the said accident, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner is unable to walk freely and attend his normal duties. His
working capacity was also affected. Hence, the said claim petition was
filed by the claimant claiming a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as compensation
for the injury sustained by him in the said accident.
3.The owner of the vehicle namely the 1st respondent in the claim
petition remained ex-parte.
4. The Insurance Company namely the 2nd respondent in the claim
petition resisted the above claim petition on the ground that, the vehicle
of the 1st respondent bearing Registration No. TN 31 AW1533 was
insured with the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company under policy
Nol.712800/31.07.2001/00009539 for the period 21.02.2008 to
20.02.2009. The policy was not renewed thereafter and that the accident
took place on 20.06.2009. Therefore, on the date of accident the
offending vehicle had no insurance coverage and therefore, the 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to
the claimant. However, in the reply statement, the claimant would submit
that, the policy was valid from 21.02.2009 to 20.02.2010 and therefore,
the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Accordingly, the claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the
accident took place as alleged and the claimant is entitled to claim
compensation from the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company and
compensation of Rs.5,69,920/- has been awarded carrying interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum.
6.Aggrieved by this, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is on
appeal. Through this appeal, award has been challenged on the ground of
liability.
7.Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy, learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that, the learned Tribunal erred in fastening the liability upon the
appellant/Insurance Company, when it was clearly established that the
copy of Insurance Policy marked by the claimant was a forged document
and that there was no valid insurance policy on the date of accident. His
further submission is that the appellant/Insurance Company has issued
the policy vide policy No.712800/31.07.2001/00009539 for the period
21.02.2008 to 20.02.2009. The owner of the vehicle failed to renew the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
insurance policy subsequently. Therefore, on the date of accident i.e., on
20.06.2009 there was no valid insurance policy. However, the claimant
has forged the aforesaid insurance policy by changing the policy period
as 21.02.2009 to 20.02.2010. The above fact was not considered by the
learned Tribunal in a proper perspective manner and in the connected
M.C.O.P.No.285/2009 before MACT, Virudhachalam, the learned
Tribunal rightly fastened the liability upon the owner of the offending
vehicle.
8. The above contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company was not rebutted on the side of the 1st
respondent. In fact, the learned counsel who appeared for the 1st
respondent fairly conceded that, in the connected M.C.O.P.No.285/2009
the learned Tribunal has fasten the liability upon the owner of the
offending vehicle. There is no dispute with regard to manner of accident,
as alleged by the claimant and the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal. The only challenge before this Court is with regard to
liability. The Tribunal ought to have examined the genuineness of the
policy marked by the claimant. Moreover, in the connected claim petition
in M.C.O.P.No 285/2009, the learned Tribunal has fixed the liability only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
upon the owner of the vehicle by considering that there was no valid
policy coverage at the time of the alleged accident. Therefore, the
impugned judgment in saddling liability with Insurance Company not
sustainable in eye of law and liable to be set aside. The Insurance
Company is not liable to indemnify the vehicle owner.
9.Therefore, award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the effect
that the compensation of Rs.5,69,920/- with future interest at 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit fixed by the
Tribunal, is directed to be paid by the owner of the vehicle/2 nd respondent
with cost within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
this order. The appellant/Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw
the amount deposited by the Insurance Company by filing necessary
application before the Tribunal.
10.Appeal is allowed on the above lines. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.09.2024
vsn
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The I Additional Sub Judge,
Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J.
vsn
19.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
