The High Court dismissed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by an insurance company against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order. The appeal, challenging liability based on driver licensing, was rejected as lacking merit after noting the legal position explained in a Supreme Court precedent.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed; no order as to costs.
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 : 29.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
C.M.A.No. 3537 of 2017
The Manager,
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited,
2nd Floor, K.K.Tower, Vaishnavi Nagar,
Next to Dharga Lake, Bangalore Main Road,
Hosur- 635 109...Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs
1.Latha
2.Minor Revathi
3.Minor Dhanalakshmi
(Respondents 2 & 3 minors
Respondent Rep by mother & NF 1st Respondent)
.. Respondents 1 to 3 / Petitioners
4.Chennakesavan ... 4th Respondent/1st Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in
M.C.O.P. No.892 of 2013 dated 06.10.2015 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Krishnagiri.
For Petitioner: Mr.M.B.Raghavan
For RR 1 to 3: Mr.M.Sivakumar
For R4: No such person
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the
liability fixed by the Tribunal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance
Company submitted that the Tribunal has passed the order fixing
the liability on the Insurance Company. The driver of the
vehicle who drove the TATA ACE bearing Registration No.KA-51-A-
7666 did not possess the Badge license with an endorsement in his
license. Further, the law has been fairly settled by the Apex
Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited, reported in [2017 (2) TNMAC 145] : [2017 ACJ
2011] wherein, it was held that in the case of the unladen
vehicle the weight below 7500 kilograms, the driver need not
possess the license with Badge endorsement. Therefore, the
learned counsel fairly submitted that the issue is no more res
integra due to the law laid down by the Apex Court.
3.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
contesting respondents 1 to 3 also fairly submitted that the law
has been settled by the Apex Court and that the issue is no more
res integra.
4.In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the present
appeal and accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
msm
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special District Judge), Krishnagiri.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R Section, High Court, Madras-104.
+1cc to Mr.M.Sivakumar, Advocate, S.R.No.26498
C.M.A.No. 3537 of 2017
NRL(CO)
SB(22/10/2021)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, deserves to be allowed despite the settled legal position cited.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company LimitedExplained¶19
[2017 (2) TNMAC 145] : [2017 ACJ 2011]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited
Latha
Revathi
Dhanalakshmi
Chennakesavan
Krishnan Ramasamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Krishnan Ramasamy
Parties & counsel