The High Court held that the deficiency in the driver's license constituted a violation under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appeal was partly allowed, directing the insurer to deposit compensation first, as the owner could not be served.
Appellant directed to deposit compensation with interest within four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.12.2016
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
C.M.A.No.2869 of 2004 and C.M.P.No.16412 of 2004
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Kamala Arcade, II Floor, No.689, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 006. ... Appellant/R 2 Vs. 1.R.Bakthavatchalam 2.R.Kathiravan ... R 2/R 1 Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2003 made in MCOP.No.697 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Small Causes Court, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.S.Janarthanam For Respondents : No appearance JUDGMENT
This appeal arises against the order passed in MCOP.No.697 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Small Causes Court, Chennai. It is a case of an accident that had taken place as long back as on 17.08.1998 when a pedestrian was hit by a car bearing Registration No.TN07-Y-6319 belonging to the second respondent herein [ first respondent before the Tribunal] and insured with the appellant. In the said accident, the claimant suffered fractures to his right wrist and for the injuries that he had sustained, has moved the Tribunal seeking compensation on various heads at Rs.1,00,000/-, against which, the Tribunal has passed an award for Rs.35,750/- payable with interest @ 9% per annum. Before the Tribunal, the appellant/Insurance Company had contended that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid licence to drive a tourist car and it produced Ex.R3, copy of the driving licence which did not contain necessary endorsement for driving the tourist car and further contended that inasmuch as there is violation of policy condition, it was not liable. This was negatived by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tribunal and it mulcted the liability on the appellant as it was required to indemnify the owner of the vehicle.
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ds
To
The IV Small Causes Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes No.IV, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.M.S.Krishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.73406
C.M.A.No.2869 of 2004
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ EV(CO) CA(07/02/2017)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant insurance company is entitled to pay compensation at first instance and recover it given the driver's lack of tourist car endorsement.
Whether the appeal should be dismissed because the second respondent owner could not be served.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
R.Bakthavatchalam
R.Kathiravan
N.Seshasayee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
