Manager Vs Munisamy

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.12.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
C.M.A.Nos.1789 & 1791 of 2020
and
C.M.P.Nos.13162 & 13168 of 2020

¶5

Manager,

¶6

M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,
Branch Office,
G.S.N.Arcade, 1st Floor,
Near Vimaladevi Kalyanamandapam,
Krishnagiri Bypass road,
Hosur - 635 109.

¶7

.. Appellant in both the CMAs/ 3^rd Respondent in both cases

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1. Munisamy

¶10

.. 1st Respondent/Petitioner
inCMA 1789 of 2020

¶11

2. Suresh

¶12

3. M/s.Chennai Solatta Private Limited,
 No.9/3, Annasali, Nagalkeni,
 Chrompet, Chennai.

¶13

.. Respondents 2 & 3 in C.M.A.
No.1789 of 20/Respondent 1 & 2

¶14

Sadhamma (Died)

1. Munisamy

2. Kumar

3. Nadhya

4. Haripriya

.. Respondent 1 to 4/
Petitioner inCMA 1791 of 2020

¶20

5. Suresh

¶21

6. M/s.Chennai Solatta Private Limited, No.9/3, Anna Salai, Nagalkeni, Chrompet, Chennai.

¶22

.. Respondents 5 & 6 in C.M.A.
No.1791 of 2020/Respondent 1 & 2

¶23

Prayer in both the CMAs: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been
filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against
the Common Order and Decree dated 24.10.2019, made in
M.C.O.P.Nos.304 and 484 of 2017, on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri.

¶24

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

¶25

For Appellant
in both the CMAs

¶26

: Mr.M.B.Raghavan

¶27

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

¶28

The insurance company questioning its liability to pay
the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
has come up with these appeals.

¶29

2. The first respondent in C.M.A.No.1789 of 2020
(M.C.O.P.No.304 of 2017) is the injured claimant seeking
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road
accident and respondents 1 to 4 in C.M.A.No.1791 of 2020
(M.C.O.P.No.484 of 2017) seek compensation for the death of one
Sadhamma, who is the wife of the first respondent and mother of
the respondents 2 to 4.

¶30

3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is as
follows:

¶31

(i) On 28.04.2010, at about 08.00 p.m. the first
respondent in C.M.A.Nos.1789 & 1791 of 2020 was riding his two
wheeler along with his wife and his minor daughter Nadhiya from
Hosur to Krishnagiri. At that time, a Maruthi car bearing
Registration No.TN-22-AW-7967, belonging to the second
respondent in C.M.A.No.1789 of 2020 and insured with the
appellant/insurance company came in a rash and negligent manner
in a high speed and dashed against the two wheeler, in which,
all the three sustained serious injuries.

¶32

(ii) Subsequently, Sadhamma was admitted in the
Government Hospital, Hosur, thereafter she was shifted to Sagar
Hospital, Bangalore, for further treatment, subsequently she
succumbed to the injuries on 12.05.2010.

¶33

(iii) In the said circumstances, claiming a sum of
Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the first
respondent herein and Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of his wife
Sadhamma two claim petitions have been filed by the claimants
before the Tribunal.

¶34

4. The appellant / insurance company contested the claim
petitions on the ground that at the time of the accident, the
driver of the Maruthi car was only having a LLR licence and he
does not possess a valid driving licence to drive the car.
Hence, claiming it as a violation of policy condition, the
appellant/insurance company contended that it is not liable to
pay the compensation. Further, it is contended that the
compensation claimed by the claimants are highly excessive.

¶35

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

¶36

5. After considering the materials available on record,
the Tribunal has held that the accident had taken place due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and so
far as negligence is concerned, the proof of negligence is only
the preponderance of probability and the onus is on the
insurance company to establish that the accident had taken place
due to the negligent driving of the first claimant. In the
absence of any evidence to the same, the Tribunal has held that
the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent
driving of the car. The Tribunal has further held that
admittedly the driver of the car is having a LLR, which is as
equal to that of a regular licence and on that ground the
insurance company cannot escape from its liability. In respect
of the quantum of compensation, considering the nature of
injuries sustained by the first respondent/first claimant
awarded a sum of Rs.2,44,657/- and in respect of the death of
his wife, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,90,110/-.
Aggrieved over the same, the appellant / insurance company is
before this Court with these appeals.

¶37

6.Thelearnedcounselappearingforthe
appellant/insurance company would submit that admittedly the
driver of the offending car has only having LLR licence, hence,
he cannot be considered as having a valid driving licence. That
apart, there is also violation of Rule 3 of the Central Motor
Vehicles Rules, without considering the same, the Tribunal fixed
the liability on the appellant/insurance company. The learned
counsel also further contended that the quantum of compensation
as awarded by the Tribunal is also highly excessive.

¶38

7. I have considered the above submissions and also
perused the records carefully.

¶39

8. The primordial contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/insurance company is that the driver
of the offending car does not possess a valid driving licence to
drive a light motor vehicle but he was only having a LLR
licence. As he drove the car without a valid licence, it is a
violationofpolicycondition,forwhich,the
appellant/insurance company is not liable to pay any
compensation.

¶40

9. The said contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co Ltd., Vs. Swaran
Singh reported in 2004 ACJ 1 has held that learners licence is
also valid as that of a regular driving licence and therefore if
a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having
a learner's licence, the insurance companies would be liable to
satisfy the decree and cannot escape from its liability.

¶41

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

¶42

10. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned,
the injured claimant sustained 30% disability and the Tribunal
for the partial permanent disability has awarded a sum of
Rs.3000/- per percentage and granted a sum of Rs.90,000/-
towards disability and other heads also only reasonable
compensation was granted totalling a sum of Rs.2,44,657/-. In
respect of the deceased, she was an agricultural coolie and
admittedly she is 45 years old and hence the Tribunal fixed her
notional monthly income as Rs.7,000/- and added 25% towards
future prospectus and deducting 1/4 towards her personal
expenses arrived at the notional monthly income at Rs.6,562/-
and applying multiplier 14 awarded a sum of Rs.11,02,416/-
towards loss of dependency and other heads also following the
guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680 only reasonable compensation was granted
totalling a sum of Rs.15,90,110/-.

¶43

11. In view of the above, I do not find any error or
illegality in the orders passed by the Tribunal warranting
interference. Further, there is no merit in the appeals and the
appeals are liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (Audit)
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar

¶44

kk

¶45

To

¶46

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
 Special Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri.

¶47

C.M.A.Nos.1789 & 1791 of 2020 and
C.M.P.Nos.13162 & 13168 of 2020
BR(CO)
B.VC (03/09/2021)

¶48

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

Manager v. Munisamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manager v. Munisamy

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 Divisional Manager United India Vs T.Sangeetha

N.Senthilkumar Vs the Kcp Ltd.

S.Perumal Vs S.Gurusamy

Reliance General Ins Co. Ltd. Vs Raja

The Managing Director Vs v.Lakshmi Devi

Valarmathi Vs the Manager