Partly allowed

United India Insurance Co.Ltd v. S.Vijayakumar,S/O.Settu

Madras HC27 Jun 2019CMA/2435/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Tribunal award of Rs. 2.4 lakhs. Court held insurer liable as policy existed, directing payment with right to sub-rogation against owner for vehicle violatin.

What did the court decide?

Directed insurer to pay compensation and recover from owner; permitted withdrawal of deposited award.

What the court decided

United India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs S.Vijayakumar,S/O.Settu — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 27.06.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.RAMATHILAGAM

¶5

C.M.A.NO.2435 OF 2015

¶6

AND M.P.1 OF 2015

¶7

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Division Office, No.9, Rohit Chambers, 5th Floor, Janmbhoomi Marg, Fort Mumbai, Maharshtra- 400 001. ..Appellant/2^nd Respondent Vs. 1. S.Vijyakumar .. 1^st Respondent/Claimant 2. A.Prabakaran .. 2^nd Respondent/1^st Respondent Prayer:

¶8

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.215 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge No.1, Salem.

¶9

For Appellant : M/s.C.Paranthaman For R1 : Mr.R.Nalliyappan J U D G M E N T

¶10

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the award dated 22.07.2015 made in M.C.O.P.No.215 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge No.1, Salem.

¶11

2.The appellant/Insurance Company is 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No. 215 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge No.1, Salem. The 1st respondent filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 17.01.2012. The Tribunal, considering the pleading, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident

¶12

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

¶13

occurred due to rash and neglignet driving by the 1st respondent's driver, so the insurer of the 1st respondent vehicle, the 2nd respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and awarded a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- as compensation. Against the said award and liability, the appellant/Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal to set aside the same.

¶14

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance company contended that the injuries that said to have been sustained by the claimant are false and without any proof either by way of documents or evidence. Further, the treatment taken by the claimant as inpatient in various hospitals is also without any proof. He has further contended that there is no medical bills produced at the time of filing claim petition and the medical bills produced in later course by the petitioner are all fasle and not admitted. He argued that the claimant without noticing the TATA India Car TN01 TAM 3242 which was driven with due care and caution in a slow and cautious manner blown horn, suddenly crossed the road as his own negligence and caused the accident himself. On the whole, the sum determined by the tribunal as compensation is denied by the appellant/Insurance Company as excessive.

¶15

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company as well as 1st respondent/claimant and perused all the materials available on record.

¶16

From the perusal of records, it is seen that on the side of the Insurance Company, RW1, who is an official of RTO, Chennai Central was examined and through him Ex.X7-Temporary Certificate of Registration has been marked. According to this Certificate the period of validity shall be from 20.10.2011 to 29.11.2011. Whereas the date of accident was on 17.01.2012, so, on the date of accident admittedly the 1st respondent's vehicle is bereft of registration. The deposition of RW1 & RW2 in chief examination is extracted as follows:

¶17

",t;tHf ;fpy; rk;ke;jg ;gl ;l lhlh ,z;ofh fhh; jw;fhypf gjpt vz; o.vd; 01-TAM-3242 v';fs; epWtdj;jpy; tpgj;Jrkak; fhg;gPL bra;ag ;gl ;oUe;jJ/ jw;fhypf fhg;gPL gotj;jpd; mYtyf efy; v.k.rh. M 1 tpgj;J rkak; nkw;go lhlh ,z;ofh fhUf;F vLf;fg;gl ;l ghyprp 19.10.2011 Kjy; 18/10/2012 tiu mkypy; , Ue;jJ. nkw;go thfdj;jpw ;F jw;fhypf gjpt 30 ehl;fSf;Fs ; gjpt bra;jpUf;f ntz;Lk ;/ tpgj;J ele;j ehshd 17/01/2012 nkw;Twpa gjpt fhykhd 30 ehl;fSf;F nky; Mfptpl;ljhy; mJ fhg;gPL tpjpkPwyhFk;/ vdnt v';fs; epWtdk; kDjhuh;

¶18

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

¶19

nfl;oUf;Fk ; ,Hg;gPl ;il bfhLf;f flikg;gl ;ljy;y/ ,J rk;ke ;jkhf brd;id tl;lhu nghf;Ftuj;J mYtyiu tprhhpj;Js;nshk;. tpgj;J ehsd;S 1k; kDjhuh; fhg;gPL tpjpkPwy; bra;jpUg;gjhy; v';fis bghUj;JtHf;if

¶20

js;Sgobra;antz;Lfpnwd; "

¶21

6/The evidence RW2 in his cross examination is as follows jw;fhypf fhg;gPL v'fs; epWtdj;jpy ; fhg;gPL bra;ag;gl ;L mJ mkypy; ,Ue;jjJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ jw;fhypf fhg;gPL 1k; vjph;kDjhhh; gpughfhud; bgahpy; mth; tz;of ;F bfhLf;fg;gl ;Ls ;sJ. fhg;gPL fhyk; xU tUlk; vd;why; rhpjhd;/

¶22

me;j xU tUl fhyj;jpw ;Fs ; Vw;gLk; rfy nrjhu'fSf;Fk ; fhg;gPL tpjpkPwYf;Fl ;gl ;L v'fs; epWtdk; jhd; bfhLf;fntz;Lk ; vd;why ; rhpjhd;/ mjdhy; kDjhuh; nfl;Ls;s ,Gg;gPil v'fs; epWtdk; jhd; bfhLf;fntz;Lk ; vd;why; rhpay;y.

¶23

Hence, from the above depositions, it is clear that the owner of the offending vehicle had obtained only a temporary registration and that was also expired even before the date of accident.

¶24

Though the appellant has aggrieved against the sum determined by the tribunal, the arguments put forth by the appellant is only on the liability.

¶25

In view of above evidence of RW1 & RW2 and also the fact that the offending vehicle has became invalid as per Exhibit X7 and since the temporary registration certificate was expired even before the occurrence of accident, the insurance company shall not be made liable only on the point of violation of policy condition. But considering the fact that the policy was in existence at the time of the accident and the owner of the vehicle has permitted his driver to run the vehicle without registration certificate and also taking into consideration of the observation that due to the negligence on the part of the 1st respondent's driver the accident had occurred, this Court is of the view that, it would be proper to direct the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶26

In view of the above, the insurance company is directed to pay the compensation to the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Since it is represented by the appellant/Insurance Company that the entire award amount has been deposited before the tribunal, the claimant is permitted

¶27

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

¶28

to withdraw the same. The appellant /Insurance Company is permitted to recover the award amount from the owner of the vehicle by filing appropriate petition.

¶29

11. In the result, The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Comp)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ak
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Special Subordinate Judge No.1,
Salem.
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section, High Court, Madras-104.
+1cc to M/s.C.Paranthaman, Advocate, S.R.No.53372
+1cc to Mr.R.Nalliyappan, Advocate, S.R.No.53362
C.M.A.No.2435 of 2015
and M.P.1 of 2015
GP(CO)
CS/07/02/2020

¶31

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

United India Insurance Co.Ltd v. S.Vijayakumar,S/O.Settu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

United India Insurance Co.Ltd v. S.Vijayakumar,S/O.Settu

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

The Divisional Manager Vs Mrs.Parameswari

R.Premkumar Vs the Managing Director

Arumugam Vs the Managing Director

Rukkammal Vs Rajeswari

Janakiraman Vs Kanagaraj

Raja Vs Arulmurugan