Allowed

The National Ins., Co., Ltd., Mettupalayam v. Rangamma

Madras HC6 Oct 2021CMA/3007/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the civil miscellaneous appeal filed by an insurance company. It held that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal erroneously fastened liability on the insurer because the deceased insured was himself the insured, not a third party, thus conditions under Section 147 were not met.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned award dated 16.04.2007 passed against the appellant Insurance Company and allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

The National Ins., Co., Ltd., Mettupalayam Vs Rangamma — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CMA.No.3007 of 2007

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06.10.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

C.M.A.No. 3007 of 2007
M/s.National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Mettupalayam Branch, R.V.R. Building,
(First Floor) 157, Karamadai,
Mettupalayam. ... Appellant
Vs.
Rangasamy (Died)
1. Rangamma
2.K. Venkatachalapathi
3.Muthuselvan ...Respondents

¶7

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree passed in MACT O.P. No.72 of 1993, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris District, Dated 16.04.2007.

¶8

For Appellant : Mrs. B. Surekha
For Respondents : R1 to R3 - No Appearance
JUDGMENT

¶9

This Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging

¶10

its liability to pay the compensation under the impugned award dated

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶12

1/6

¶13

CMA.No.3007 of 2007

¶14

16.04.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District

¶15

Judge, Udhagamandalam in M.C.O.P. No.72 of 1993.

¶16

Heard, Mrs. B. Surekha, learned counsel for the Appellant.

¶17

3. The Appellant has challenged the impugned award on the

¶18

ground that since the deceased is himself the insured, the claimants who are his dependants are not entitled for any compensation. According to them, the Tribunal under the impugned award has erroneously awarded compensation to the respondent/ claimant. In support of the contentions raised by the Appellant in this Appeal, learned counsel for the Appellant drew the attention of this Court to the following authorities :

¶19

i) Naveen Kumar Vs Vijay Kumar & Others reported in CDJ 2018 SC 071 and

¶20

ii) TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited

¶21

vs Govindarajan and 2 others , decision of a Single Bench of this Court dated 10.09.2020 passed in CMA No.4862 of 2019.

¶22

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant also drew the attention of this

¶23

Court to Paragraph No.14 of the impugned award, where a categorical

¶24

finding has been given by the Tribunal stating that the registration

¶25

certificate for the insured vehicle stands in the name of one A. Arul, who

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶27

2/6

¶28

CMA.No.3007 of 2007

¶29

is the insured and who is the deceased and for whom compensation has been claimed by his dependants in M.C.O.P. No. 72 of 1993 which is the subject matter of this Appeal. As seen from the impugned award, the accident happened on 01.09.1992 and on the date of the accident the Registration Certificate for the insured vehicle stood only in the name of

¶30

the insured (A. Arul) and only thereafter, after his death, it was transferred in the name of his mother with effect from 02.09.1992 and thereafter in the name of the second respondent, Muthuselvan with effect from 19.12.1993. Therefore, it is very clear that the deceased cannot be considered to be a third party as he himself is the insured.

¶31

5. The Appellant /Insurance Company is statutorily liable to pay

¶32

the compensation only if the conditions stipulated under Section 147 of

¶33

the Motor Vehicles Act have been satisfied.

¶34

6. In the case on hand, the conditions have not been satisfied and therefore, the Insurance Company is not statutorily liable to pay the

¶35

compensation as the deceased himself is the insured and is not a third

¶36

party.

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶38

3/6

¶39

CMA.No.3007 of 2007

¶40

7. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the

¶41

Appellant referred to supra also supports the Appellant's case.

¶42

8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that erroneously, the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the Appellant Insurance Company under the impugned award. Hence, the impugned award dated 16.04.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris District in MCOP No.72 of 1993, is hereby set aside as against the appellant / Insurance Company and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.

¶43

06.10.2021

¶44

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order ab/vsi2

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

4/6

CMA.No.3007 of 2007

The District Judge,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Udhagamandalam,
Nilgiris District
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court, Madras.

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶51

5/6

¶52

CMA.No.3007 of 2007

¶53

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

CMA.No.3007 of 2007

06.10.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶58

6/6

The National Ins., Co., Ltd., Mettupalayam v. Rangamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The National Ins., Co., Ltd., Mettupalayam v. Rangamma

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

Ruby, Vs R.Venkatesan

M.Anbu Vs Nithya Sridhar

Neyveli Lignite Corporation Vs M/S Eswari Enterprises

United India Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs Albones

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Periyasamy

The Managing Director, Vs Vijayalakshmi