Appeal against Motor Accidents Tribunal awarding 50% liability to the Insurance Company for driver's license violation; supported by Supreme Court precedent allowing insurer to recover from owner.
Appeal dismissed; insurer directed to recover amount from owner per Supreme Court precedent; cross objection for delay in compensation rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.2.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3446 of 2011
M.P.No.1 of 2011 and C.M.P.No.6624 of 2018 in Cross Obj.SR No.22247 of 2018
The National Insurance Company ltd., Divisional Office at LRN Complex, Sarada College Road, Salem.
...Appellant / 2nd Respondent in CMA.No.3446 of 2011 and 1st Respondent in Cross Objection in SR.22247/2018
..Vs..
3 Minor K.Priyanka
5 Subramanian (died)
.. Respondent No.5 to 6 and R2 in Cross Objection SR.22247/2018/ Respondents 1 & 3
Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgement and decree dated 09.09.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.925 of 2008 on the file of Additional District Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) Salem.
Cross Objection SR.22247 of 2018 Prayer:
The Memorandum of Grounds of Cross Objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC praying this Court to enhance the compensation amount awarded and fix the full liability on the appellant in the Judgment and decree dated 09/09/2011 made in MCOP.No.925/2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge and Special Judge for EC Act Cases, Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Udayasankar For Respondent No.1 to 3 : Mr.S.P.Yuaraj For Respondent No.4 & 6 : Notice unserved Respondent No.5 : Died
Cross Objection
Cross Objectors 1 to 3 : Mr.S.P.Yuaraj 1st Respondent : Mr.G.Udayasankar 2nd Respondent : Notice unserved
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the case is as follows:
On 4.3.2008 at about 11.00 p.m. when the deceased Kannan was riding Hero Honda Dawn motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-30-F-1305 on the extreme left side of the 3 road to Lee bazaar main road and when he was coming near Lee Bazaar Petrol Bunk, a lorry bearing registration No.TML 4802 came from opposite direction was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn with great speed and hit against the motorcycle, thereby caused accident, resulting in Kannan sustained grievous injuries all over the body and immediately he was shifted to Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College hospital where he died. A case has been registered in Cr.No.112 of 2008 under Section 279 and 304-A of I.P.C. Against the lorry driver by the Salem City Police. The legal heirs of the deceased have filed a claim petition before the tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- against the appellant and the 5th respondent being the insurer of the vehicle and owner of the vehicle.
3 Tribunal, based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, found that since the vehicle driven by the person without proper licence for driving such heavy motor vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot hold the full responsibility of paying the compensation and holds that the owner of the lorry is liable to pay 50% and Insurance company is liable to pay 50% of the award amount of Rs.6,57,500/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.
for the respondents/claimants and perused the materials available on record.
''Therefore, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court we direct in terms of what has been stated in Baljit Kaur's case (supra) that the insurer shall pay the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, about which there was no dispute raised, to the respondents-claimants within three months from today. For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned Executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was the subject matter of determination
before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Before release of the amount to the insured, owner of the vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the Executing Court shall take assistance of the concerned Regional Transport authority. The Executing Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the insured, owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the Executing Court to direct realization by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, the insured. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.''
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vaan
To
+1cc to Mr.SP.Yuaraj, Advocate, S.R.No. 9362 +1cc to Mr.G.Udayasankar, Advocate, S.R.No.8648
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3446 of 2011 M.P.No.1 of 2011 and C.M.P.No.6624 of 2018 in Cross Obj.SR No.22247 of 2018
PP(CO) GN(21/09/2021)
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
BANUMATHI
K.RAMESH
K.PRIYANKA
SELLAMMAL
D. KRISHNAKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
