Partly allowed

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. M.Rayappan

Madras HC9 Dec 2022CMA/1237/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed part of the insurance company's appeal against a motor accident claims award. Ruling that the insurer must pay but recover from the vehicle owner due to the driver's invalid licence, the Court modified the award's liability clauses.

What did the court decide?

Insurance company must deposit the award amount within eight weeks after deducting claims already paid and recover the sum from the vehicle owner.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs M.Rayappan — Insurance | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.M.A.No.1237 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.12.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶6

C.M.A.No.1237 of 2011 and Cross.Obj.SR.No.100928 of 2012

¶7

C.M.A.No.1237 of 2011

¶8

New India Assurance Company Ltd., No.43, Moore Street, Chennai - 1.

¶9

... Appellant

¶10

/versus/

¶11

M.Rayappan

¶12

R.Jeneva Nithya

¶13

R.Vinodh Britto Amalraj

¶14

G.Ramdoss

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Cross.Obj.SR.No.100928 of 2012

¶17

M.Rayappan

¶18

R.Jeneva Nithya

¶19

R.Vinodh Britto Amalraj

¶20

/Versus/

¶21

New India Assurance Company Ltd, No.43, Moore Street,

¶22

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

¶23

1/7

¶24

C.M.A.No.1237 of 2014

¶25

Chennai-1.

¶26

G.Ramdos

¶27

(since R2 was set exparte in the Tribunal notice may be dispensed with) PRAYER in C.M.A.No.1237 of 2011 : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed

¶28

under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment dated 22.04.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.777 of 2006 on the file of

¶29

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge (II Fast Track Court), Chennai.

¶30

PRAYER in Cross.Obj.SR.No.100928 of 2012 : Cross Objection filed under Order 41, Rule 22 of C.P.C, against the decree and judgment dated 22.04.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.777 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge (II Fast Track Court), Chennai.

¶31

For Appellant : Mr.Vinod M/s.Elveera Ravindran For R1 to R3 : Mr.T.G.Balachandran For R4 : No appearance

¶32

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

¶33

2/7

¶34

C.M.A.No.1237 of 2014

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The Insurance Company is the appellant herein.

¶37

The respondents 1 to 3 herein are the claim petitioners before

¶38

the Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.777 of 2016 claiming compensation for the death of wife of the first petitioner.

¶39

After trial, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,79,000/-

¶40

towards compensation. Though the tribunal has held that as per Ex.R3 charge sheet, at the time of the accident the driver was not having valid driving licence, pay and recovery was not ordered. However, the tribunal has ordered both the owner of the vehicle and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Challenging the liability, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

¶41

3/7

¶42

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

¶43

C.M.A.No.1237 of 2014

¶44

After going through Ex.R3 charge sheet filed in Crime No.N2/06/N1/06 and also taking note of the condition of the policy as contained in Ex.R2 and also the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co Ltd V Swaran Singh, reported in 2004(1) TNMAC 104 (SC) , the Insurance Company is not liable, since at the time of the accident, the driver was not having valid driving license to drive the two wheeler.

¶45

However, based upon the above judicial pronouncement, the Insurance Company is required to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.777 of 2006, dated 22.04.2010 is partly modified to the extent

¶46

as indicated above, except the above pay and recovery clause, the award amount appears to be just and reasonable.

¶47

4/7

¶48

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

¶49

C.M.A.No.1237 of 2014

¶50

In the result,

¶51

(i)This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.

¶52

(ii) The balance award amount shall be deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.777 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge (II Fast Track Court), Chennai, after deducting the amount already deposited, within a period of eight weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶53

(iii)On such deposit, the claimant petitioners/ respondent R1 to R3 are permitted to withdraw the same as apportioned by the tribunal, after filing appropriate application.

¶54

The Cross objection has been filed by the claim petitioners/cross objectors. The learned counsel appearing for the cross objectors seeks permission of this Court to dismiss the Cross Objection as not pressed. Accordingly, this Cross Objection is dismissed as not pressed at the SR stage itself.

¶55

09.12.2022

¶56

nvi Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No

¶57

5/7

¶58

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

¶59

C.M.A.No.1237 of 2014

¶60

¶61

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge (II Fast Track Court), Chennai.

¶62

2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶63

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.,

¶64

nvi

¶65

6/7

¶66

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

¶67

C.M.A.No.1237 of 2014

¶68

C.M.A.No.1237 of 2011 and Cross.Obj.SR.No.100928 of 2012

¶69

09.12.2022

¶70

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

¶71

7/7

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. M.Rayappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. M.Rayappan

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

The Manager Vs M Kumar

R.Murugavel, Vs Parvatham

Sellamuthu Vs Nirmala

Palanisamy Vs K.S Viswanathan

B.Gokila Vs R.Murugesan

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Senthilkumar