Partly allowed

National Insurance Compnay Lt v. R.Vennila

Madras HC5 Aug 2013CMA/3619/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the civilian miscellaneous appeal partly. It held that despite the driver's lack of a valid licence, the insurer must pay compensation to the claimants as a third party, subsequently recovering the amount from the vehicle owner through the procedure outlined in precedent.

What did the court decide?

Insurance Company directed to pay compensation with interest to claimants and recover the amount from the vehicle owner per supplemental procedure.

National Insurance Compnay Lt Vs R.Vennila — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.08.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M. AKBAR ALI

¶5

C.M.A.No.3619 of 2012

¶6

National Insurance Company Limited, Tiruchirapalli

¶7

... Appellant/2^nd Respondent /vs/

¶8

1.R.Vennila 2.Minor R.Bhavani 3.Minor R.Vishalini 4.P.Thamodaran 5.T.Alamelu 6.C.Pitchai ... Respondents/Petitioners 1 to 5

¶9

(Minor respondents 2 & 3 represented by their mother 1^st Respondent R.Vennila as next friend and natural Guardian)

¶10

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2010 passed by the Principal District Judge, Perambalur (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.161 of 2010

¶11

The appeal arises out of the judgment dated 30.11.2010 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.161 of 2010, whereby the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perambalur, has allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,53,000/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty three thousand) with interest at 7.5% p.a., for the death of one Rangaraj, husband of the first respondent, father of the respondents 2 and 3, in a motor accident said to have taken place on 8.4.2009 at 10.10 hours near Perambalur Bazaar Road. Respondents 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased.

¶12

According to first respondent herein, who was examined as P.W.1, on 8.4.2009 at about 10.10 hours, while the deceased Rangaraj was travelling as a pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Registration No.TN-46-H-1418 on the Perambalur Bazaar Road, the motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN.46-H-9772, belonging to the sixth respondent herein, insured with the appellant, driven in a rash and

¶13

negligent manner, dashed against the deceased and he sustained grievous injuries, as a result of which he died.

¶14

A claim petition in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.161 of 2010 was filed by the respondents 1 to 5 herein/claimants, claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten Lakh only), for the death of the said Rangaraj, which was resisted by the appellant-Insurance Corporation on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid licence on the date of accident and hence the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation.

¶15

Since the liability alone is questioned, that too, on the basis of the licence, the other aspects are not dealt with.

¶16

5.Though the insurance company has examined R.W.1-the Inspector of Regional Transport Office, Perambalur, to the effect that the driver, who drove the vehicle, which was insured with them, did not possess valid licence on the date of accident, the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company is before this Court.

¶17

6.Ms.N.B.Surekha-the learned counsel for the appellant would point out that the insurance company has examined the official of a Regional Transport Office and proved that the driver of the vehicle did not possess any licence on the date of accident. The learned counsel after pointing out that the claimants themselves have filed a learner's licence, that too, which has been obtained after the accident. She would also point out that when there is no valid licence, the insurance company ought to have been exonerated.

¶18

7.On the other hand, Mr.P.Mani-the learned counsel for the claimants would point out that even in a case of no licence, the insurance company should be directed to pay the compensation and later recover it from the owner of the vehicle.

¶19

8.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶20

9.The insurance company has taken a defence under Section 149 of the Act that the driver of the vehicle did not possess any licence and it was also proved. It is trite law that the insurer cannot avoid the liability to answer the claim of the third parties, but the insurer is at liberty to proceed against the owner of the vehicle and recover the amount paid by it after paying the claimants/appellants vide 2013 (1) CTC 57 Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Theni Vs. Mansoor Hussain and another.

¶21

10.Applying the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Honourable Apex Court, this Court is of the view that the insurance company must be directed to pay the compensation to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ claimants and later recover it from the owner of the vehicle, namely, the 6^th respondent herein, and accordingly it is ordered.

¶22

11.In Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Shri Nanjappan and others, reported in I (2004) ACC 524 (SC) the mode of recovery is contemplated and therefore the learned counsel representing the Insurance Company requested this court to incorporate such mode to enable the insurance company to recover the compensation paid, from the owner. Since the mode of recovery is not mentioned in the judgment of the Tribunal, I could see force in the argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance company.

¶23

12.Therefore, it is held that the appellant Insurance Company is directed to pay compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, namely, the 6^th respondent herein, as per the mode incorporated in paragraph 7 of Shri Nanjappan's case, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:-

¶24

“ For the purpose of recovering the compensation amount from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned Executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the insured was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and as if the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. A notice shall be issued to the insured to furnish security for the entire amount. The offending vehicle shall be attached as a part of the security. If necessity arises, the Executing Court shall take assistance of the concerned Regional Transport Authority. The Executing Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the insured/owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the Executing Court to direct realisation by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property of the insured”.

¶25

13.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. The appellant is directed to deposit the award amount with interest awarded by the tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants 1, 4 and 5 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares as apportioned by the Tribunal. As far the shares of the minor claimants, namely, claimants 2 and 3 are concerned, the same shall be deposited in a fixed deposit in any one of the Nationalised Banks, initially for a period of three years, renewable thereafter from time to time, till they attain majority. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

msk

¶32

¶33

The Principal District Judge, Perambalur
(Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal)
Copy to: The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Ms.N.B.Surekha, Advocate, Sr.No.40813
+1cc to Mr.P.Mani, Advocate, Sr.No.41107
C.M.A.No.3619 of 2012
NMI(CO)
MS:27/01/2014

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

National Insurance Compnay Lt v. R.Vennila

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Compnay Lt v. R.Vennila

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bajaj Allianz General Vs Shanmugam

Oriental Insurance Co., Vs Manikumar (Aged 45 Yrs)

Navappan, Vs Jegan

The Revenue Divisional Officer Vs Ramadevi

Baskar Vs the National Insurance

Mr M.Ravi, Vs Mr. Baskar