Partly allowed

The United India Insurance Company Ltd, v. N.Panneerselvam

Madras HC15 Dec 2022CMA/2757/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal filed by an insurance company against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, the High Court of Madras held that the insurer must pay the awarded compensation even though the two-wheeler was driven by an unlicensed minor, directing the company to recover the amount from the vehicle owner subsequently.

What did the court decide?

The insurance company is directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 93,000 fixed by the tribunal and recover it from the vehicle owner.

The United India Insurance Company Ltd, Vs N.Panneerselvam — Insurance | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.M.A.No.2757 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15.12.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶6

C.M.A.No.2757 of 2022 and

¶7

C.M.P.No.21551 of 2022

¶8

M/s.The United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional office opposite to Park Gate Dr.Nanjappa Road, Coimbatore - 18. ... Appellant

¶9

vs.

¶10

N.Panneerselvam 2.P.Suriya 3.J.Pugazhendran (2nd and 3rd respondents are set ex-parte in lower Court)

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 03.10.2013 in M.C.O.P.No.421 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Judge) at Coimbatore.

¶13

For Appellant : M/s.R.Sree Vidhya For R1 : Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel

¶14

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

¶15

1/5

¶16

C.M.A.No.2757 of 2022

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Mr.Ma.Pa.Thangavel, learned counsel takes notice for the 1^st

¶19

respondent/caveator.

¶20

The first respondent alone is the contesting injured person and

¶21

he filed MCOP No.421 of 2012 before the Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Judge), Coimbatore seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident took place on 22.02.2011.

¶22

In the said application, the appellant/insurance company has filed a counter stating that on the date of the accident, two wheeler that met with the accident was driven by a person aged below 18 years, ie., a minor with no driving license. However, the policy of insurance is covering the third party.

¶23

The Tribunal, on considering the documentary evidence, viz., Ex.P3-Wound certificate, Ex.P7-discharge summary and Ex.P8, disability certificate and MO1 - X-ray, coupled with the oral evidence of PW2-Doctor held that owner of the vehicle and the insurance company are liable to pay

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

C.M.A.No.2757 of 2022

¶27

compensation jointly and severally and the 3^rd respondent/Insurance Company has to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner. On the point of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded Rs.93,000/along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the petition till the date of realization, along with proportionate costs.

¶28

Aggrieved by the said finding of the Tribunal, the insurance

¶29

company has filed this appeal.

¶30

Heard both the parties and perused the records.

¶31

On perusal for Ex.P2, Charge sheet as well as Ex.P5-MVI

¶32

Report, I find that though the minor who drove the two wheeler had no driving license, following the decisions and prepositions of law, the insurance company is directed to pay the amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶33

3/5

¶34

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

¶35

C.M.A.No.2757 of 2022

¶36

Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly-allowed. The compensation fixed by the trial court is kept in tact. The judgment and decree dated 03.10.2013 made in MCOP No.421 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Judge) at Coimbatore is modified only to the above extent. No costs.

¶37

15.12.2022

¶38

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

¶39

¶40

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Judge) at Coimbatore.

¶41

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

¶42

4/5

¶43

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

¶44

C.M.A.No.2757 of 2022

¶45

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.,

¶46

nvi

¶47

C.M.A.No.2757 of 2022

¶48

15.12.2022

¶49

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

¶50

5/5

The United India Insurance Company Ltd, v. N.Panneerselvam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The United India Insurance Company Ltd, v. N.Panneerselvam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saravanan Vs Kowsalya

Janardhanan Vs M.Vinayagam

M.Prabhu Vs R.Prabhu

Thangadurai Vs Kumaravel

Sanjay Kumar Vs Shaik Ansar Basha

V.Nithya Vs J.Arun