Allowed

S. Rangasami S/O. Subbiah v. H. Kesavan

Madras HC7 Oct 2020CMA/3720/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the MACT's order exonerating the insurance company. Ruling that lack of a valid driving licence is only a violation of policy terms, not a ground for exemption. The insurer is directed to deposit the awarded compensation with liberty to recover it from the vehicle owners.

What did the court decide?

The 4th respondent-Insurance Company directed to deposit Rs.6,69,600/- along with interest and costs. Appeal allowed.

S. Rangasami S/O. Subbiah Vs H. Kesavan — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.10.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

C.M.A.No.3720 of 2013

¶6

(Through Video Conferencing)

¶7

S.Rangasami ... Appellant/Claimant

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.H.Kesavan 2.M.David Joseph 3.S.K.Karthikeyan 4.The National Insurance Co., Ltd., Branch-II, 92, Thevarpuram Road, Tuticorin. ... Respondents/Respondents

¶10

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.01.2009 made in M.C.O.P.No.878 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, ( 1^st Additional Sub Court ) Coimbatore.

¶11

For Appellant: Mr.Govi Ganesan

¶12

For R4 : M/s.N.B.Surekha

¶13

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 20.01.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (1^st Additional Sub Court ) Coimbatore in M.C.O.P.No.878 of 2005.

¶14

By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,69,600/- as compensation together with interest at 7.5% from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit, to the appellant/claimant.

¶15

By the impugned order, the Tribunal has exonerated the 4^th respondent -Insurance Company and on the ground that the driver did not possess valid driving licence at the time of

¶16

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

¶17

accident. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-claimant has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶18

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have ordered the 4^th respondent-Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation to the appellant as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanjappan and Others, (2004) 13 SCC 224 and recover the amount from the 2^nd respondent owner of the vehicle.

¶19

It is submitted that the 2^nd respondent herein owner of the vehicle who transferred it in the name to the 3^rd respondent.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for both sides.

¶21

It is noticed that non possession of the driving licence is only a violation of the terms of policy conditions and therefore there is no ground for exonerating the Insurance Company to pay the compensation as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanjappan and Others, (2004) 13 SCC 224. Therefore, the 4^th respondent - Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶22

Therefore, the 4^th respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation of Rs.6,69,600/- awarded together with interest at 7.5% from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs, less any amount already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

¶23

On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same together with interest and costs, less any amount already deposited, by filing suitable application.

¶24

Liberty is given to the 4^th respondent - Insurance Company to take appropriate steps to recover the amount from the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents owner of the insured vehicle in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanjappan and Others, (2004) 13 SCC 224, in accordance with law.

¶25

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

¶26

Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No cost.

¶27

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

kkd To:

¶31

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ( 1^st Additional Sub Court ) Coimbatore.

¶32

Copy to The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Chennai.

¶33

+1cc to M/s.K.Govi Ganesan, Advocate Sr.33199 +1cc to M/s.N.B.Surekha, Advocate Sr.33220

¶34

C.M.A.No.3720 of 2013 and

M.P.No.1 of 2013

ad[co]

srg 18/11/2021

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

S. Rangasami S/O. Subbiah v. H. Kesavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Rangasami S/O. Subbiah v. H. Kesavan

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

Panneerselvam Vs The Authorised officer

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited Vs Eta Engineering Private Limited

N.Saravanan Vs The District Collector

Paavadai Vs The District Collector

Nagoor Meeran Vs Union of India

K.Balasubramaniyan Vs Member Secretary