Dismissed

The Divisional Manager v. Tr.S.Arumugam

Madras HC17 Feb 2021CMA/2278/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed the appeal filed by an insurance company against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The Court held that since notice was not served on the vehicle owner (second respondent), the Court could not interfere with the Tribunal's award against the insurer, leaving the insurer to proceed against the owner.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed. Notice not served to the second respondent; insurer to proceed against the owner of the vehicle.

The Divisional Manager Vs Tr.S.Arumugam — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17.2.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.2278 OF 2010

¶6

M.P.NO.1 OF 2010

¶7

The Divisional Manager,
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Cuddalore – 1.

¶8

 ...Appellant/2nd Respondent

¶9

..Vs..

¶10

1.S.Arumugam ...Respondent No.1/Petitioner
2.D.Arumugam ...Respondent-2/Respondent No.1

¶11

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, against the Judgement and decree dated 21.12.2006 made in
M.C.O.P.No.438 of 2005 on the file of Additional Subordinate
Judge (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Cuddalore.

¶12

For Appellant: Mr.J.Chandran

¶13

For Respondent No.1: Mr.A.N.Viswanatha Rao
 R2: Dismissed on 17/02/2021

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Brief facts of the case is as follows:

¶16

On 28.12.2004 at about 9.30 a.m. when the
petitioner/first respondent herein along with another was
travelling in a Minidor vehicle bearing registration No.PY-01-U-
6181 proceeding from East to West, opposite to Primary Health
Centre, Kattiyankuppam, the driver of the vehicle drove the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, while giving way to the
on-coming vehicle, the aforesaid vehicle capsized, thereby
caused accident, resulting in the claimant sustained multiple
grievous injuries including fracture. The claimant has filed a
claim petition before the tribunal claiming compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- against the appellant and the second respondent
herein being the insurer and owner of the vehicle.

¶17

2. The owner of the vehicle viz., second respondent
herein remained exparte before the tribunal. On the side of the
claimants, P.W.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.P1 to 8 were marked.

¶18

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

¶19

On the side of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R1
marked.

¶20

3 Tribunal, based on the oral and documentary evidence
adduced by both sides, came to the conclusion that due to rash
and negligent driving of the second respondent, the accident
occurred. The tribunal while awarding compensation of
Rs.2,15,000/-to the claimants along with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization,
fastened the liability against the appellant/ Insurance Company.

¶21

4. Challenging the said award, the Insurance Company has
filed the present appeal against the liability fastened against
the Insurance Company and also against the quantum of
compensation. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under
various headsareas follows:

¶22

`Heads` `Amount in` `Rs.`
`Permanent disability 35%` `1,89,000/-`
`Pain and sufferings` `15,000/-`
`Extra Nourishment` `10,000/-`
`Transport` `1,000/-`
`Total :` `2,15,000/-`

¶23

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/Insurance Company and the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent/claimant and perused the materials available
on record.

¶24

6. Notice was ordered by this Court. Mr.A.Viswanathan,
counsel appeared for the first respondent/claimant. But, notice
was not served to the second respondent. Private notice was
also permitted. Affidavit of service not filed before the
Registry. This Court is of the view that notice unserved to the
second respondent. Therefore, appeal as against the second
respondent is dismissed.

¶25

7. The appellant has raised a plea that the respondent /
claimant travelled in the second respondent vehicle as
unauthorised passenger for which the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant relied upon F.I.R. wherein it has been stated
that the appellant was waiting for bus and he was travelled in
the Minidor vehicle belongs to the second respondent along with
another person. The said vehicle is classified as goods
vehicle. It permits loadman only to travel, but the claimant
was not a loadman, he is unauthorised passenger travelled in the
said vehicle. Therefore, Insurance company is not liable to pay
compensation.

¶26

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

¶27

8. Notice has not been served on the second respondent
in the appeal is of the year 2010. Tribunal had came to the
conclusion that the appellant/ Insurance Company is liable to
pay compensation to the claimant. To contest the case, the
owner of the vehicle is not before this Court. The appellant
has not taken steps to serve notice to the second respondent.
Since notice was not served on the second respondent, this Court
cannot interfere with the award passed by the tribunal.
However, it is open to the appellant/Insurance Company to
proceed against the owner of the vehicle, second respondent
herein in accordance with law.

¶28

9. In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed
with the above observations. No costs. Connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.

¶29

Deputy Registrar (CS)

¶30

// True Copy //

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

vaan

¶33

To

¶34

The Additional Subordinate Judge,
(Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal),
Cuddalore.

¶35

Copy to :

¶36

 The Section Officer,
 V.R.Section,
 Madras High Court, Chennai-104.

¶37

+1cc to Mr.J.Chandran, Advocate SR.No.10143

¶38

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2278 of 2010
M.P.No.1 of 2010

¶39

SSI(CO)
RVM(02/09/2021)

¶40

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

The Divisional Manager v. Tr.S.Arumugam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager v. Tr.S.Arumugam

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

Padmavathi Ammal Vs Kanakaraj

The Divisional Manager, Vs Pappathi @ Pappatty

The Divisional Manager, Vs Ilangovan

R. Krishanmurthi Vs M/S Southern Roadways Ltd.

The United India Insurance Co. Vs S.Ekavalli

The Divisional Manager Vs Padmavathy