Dismissed

Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., v. Muthusamy

Madras HC16 Jul 2018CMA(MD)/494/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed the Insurance Company's appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Relying on a Supreme Court precedent, the court rejected the claim that the lack of a transport endorsement on a Light Motor Vehicle license was a valid ground to deny liability or question the Tribunal's finding.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and connected petition dismissed; no costs.

Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs Muthusamy — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.07.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU C.M.A(MD).No.494 of 2018

¶5

and

¶6

C.M.P.(MD).No.5892 of 2018

¶7

Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Chekkalai, Karaikudi. ...Appellant/3^rd respondent Vs.

¶8

1.Muthusamy ... 1^st respondent / Claimant 2.Ravi .. 2^nd respondent/ 1^st respondent

¶9

3.Amirthavalli .. 3^rd respondent /2^nd respondent

¶10

PRAYER:- Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award, dated 05.06.2012, passed in M.C.O.P.No.15 of 2004 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Devakottai.

¶11

For appellant : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Insurance Company.

¶14

It is a case of injury. The manner of the accident is not in dispute. The accident is of the year 2004. The appellant / Insurance Company has filed this appeal only questioning the liability on the ground that at the time of the accident, the driver of the insured vehicle was holding only Light Motor Vehicle license and he was not having badge endorsement to drive the transport vehicle.

¶15

The issue involved in this appeal has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited , reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 145 (SC) , wherein it has been clearly held that if a driver is holding licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle, he can drive the transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect. Here, in this case, it is not in dispute that the first respondent, driver of the vehicle, had Light Motor Vehicle licence at the time of the accident and therefore, the ground raised by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the appellant is liable to be rejected in toto.

¶16

¶17

In view of the above, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶19

/True Copy/

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶21

¶22

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Devakottai.

¶23

+1cc to Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran, Advocate Sr.No.73426

¶24

GCG

¶25

VB/KAK/SAR4/29.08.2018/2P/3C

¶26

C.M.A(MD).No.494 of 2018

¶27

16.07.2018

¶28

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

Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., v. Muthusamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., v. Muthusamy

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

The Managing Director Vs Anjali Devi

T. Sathish Kannan Vs a. Dhanalakshmi

Lakshmi Vs M/S.Tamilnadu State Transport

Noor Faigira Begam, Vs O.M.Rameeja Beevi

The Oriental Insurance Company Vs Sulochana

The Oriental Insurance Vs Vicotria, W/O Hercules