Dismissed

The Branch Manager, v. Ramzan Beevi

Madras HC5 Nov 2015CMA/2466/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed the insurance company's civil miscellaneous appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award of Rs. 16,704. The court allowed the insurer to proceed against the vehicle owner under pay and recovery principles given the low award amount.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the insurer to proceed against the vehicle owner via pay and recovery principles; Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed.

The Branch Manager, Vs Ramzan Beevi — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 05.11.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

¶5

C.M.A. NO.2466 OF 2015 & M.P.NO.1 OF 2015

¶6

The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., No.123-A, No.2 Road, Mayiladuthurai – 609 001. ..Appellant/Respondent Versus 1.Ramzan Beevi ..1st Respondent/Petitioner 2.V.Elangovan ..2nd Respondent/1st Respondent PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.276 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Perambalur.

¶7

For Appellant : Mr.S.Arun Kumar J U D G M E N T

¶8

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.276 of 2013 dated 15.07.2014, by which, as against the original compensation of Rs.50,000/- claimed by the victim for the injuries suffered, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.16,704/-, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the claimant that there were sufficient injuries for which the claimant should be awarded with the above said amount. This has been questioned by the United India Insurance Company on the ground of liability.

¶9

2.Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the vehicle involved was insured but the conditions mentioned under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is that every owner of the vehicle shall use the vehicle after obtaining fitness certificate. In the present case, the vehicle involved in the accident has not been insured with the fitness certificate. Therefore, there is a clear violation of the conditions of the

¶10

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

¶11

insurance coverage still. Adding further the learned counsel submitted that in any event, since the Tribunal has not applied the principles towards pay and recovery, in which, the Insurance Company would claim from the owner of the vehicle has wrongly proceeded to award a sum of Rs.16,704/-. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside.

¶12

3.This Court, considering the peculiar facts of the case that the amount awarded by the Tribunal being so little, namely, only Rs.16,704/-, this Court has no hesitation giving liberty to the Insurance Company to proceed against the owner applying the principles of pay and recovery to dismiss the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2015 is closed.

¶13

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sri
To
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Perambalur.
+ 1 cc to Mr.S. Arunkumar, Advocate Sr.61024
C.M.A. NO.2466 OF 2015
& M.P.NO.1 OF 2015
EV(CO)
EU 06.1.16

¶14

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

The Branch Manager, v. Ramzan Beevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager, v. Ramzan Beevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Subramaniam Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

M/s.Si Media Polytech Vs The Assistant Commercial Tax

Murugan Vs the Managing Director

Yesu Chandra Bose Vs R.Rajagopal IAS

The Corporate Manager of Rc Vs Ilabngovan

M.Kavitha Vs S.Kannappan