Allowed

M/S.Andhra Cement Carrier v. the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.

Madras HC28 Jun 2022CMA/4526/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the Tribunal's award ordering the vehicle owner to pay compensation at the first instance. The Court set aside the recovery clause, holding the driver possessed a valid license at the time of the accident, and imposed joint and several liability on both the owner and insurer.

What did the court decide?

Award directed pay-and-recovery set aside; owner and insurer declared jointly and severally liable; compensation of Rs.22,26,569 confirmed.

M/S.Andhra Cement Carrier Vs the Royal Sundaram… — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.M.A.No.4526 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 28.06.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

C.M.A.No.4526 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.25677 of 2019

¶7

M/s.Andhra Cement Carrier

¶8

Represented by its Proprietor Having Office at No.110/E, G.K.Complex Thiruvallur – 602 001.

¶9

Now Office at Sholinghur Road Kumpinipet

¶10

Behind Indian Oil Pump, Arakonam – 631 003. ... Appellant

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Having Office at Subramanian building 2^nd floor, No.1, Club House Road Anna salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶13

2.S.Mangala Devi

¶14

3.Minor N.S.M.Navarasan (Minor represented by mother and natural guardian S.Mangala Devi)

¶15

1/10

¶16

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

¶17

C.M.A.No.4526 of 2019

¶18

4.Minor N.S.M.Kavya

¶19

(Minor represented by mother and natural guardian S.Mangala Devi)

¶20

N.Manonmani (died) (Amended as per order in I.A.No.837/2007 dated 06.11.2017)

¶21

J.Natarajan (died) (Amended as per order in I.A.No.247/2017 dated 21.07.2017)

¶22

... Respondents

¶23

Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.181 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Additional District Court, Thiruvallur at Ponneri.

¶24

For Appellant : Mr.S.Shanmugasundaram for Mr.S.Senthilnathan For R1 : Mr.G.Vasudevan

¶25

For R2 to R4 : Mr.K.Hariharan

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.M.VELUMANI,J.)

¶28

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant, owner

¶29

of the vehicle, challenging the portion of the award ordering pay and recovery,

¶30

2/10

¶31

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

¶32

C.M.A.No.4526 of 2019

¶33

passed by the Tribunal dated 30.11.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.181 of 2013

¶34

on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Additional District Court,

¶35

Thiruvallur at Ponneri.

¶36

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent/Insurance Company and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 and perused the entire materials on record.

¶37

3.The appellant, owner of the vehicle is the 1^st respondent in M.C.O.P.No.181 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV

¶38

Additional District Court, Thiruvallur at Ponneri. The respondents 2 to 4 along with one N.Manonmani and J.Natarajan filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.80 lakhs as compensation for the death of one Saravanan, who died in the accident that took place on 05.07.2012. Pending claim petition, the said Manonmani and Natarajan, who are parents of the deceased Saravanan died.

¶39

3/10

¶40

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

¶41

C.M.A.No.4526 of 2019

¶42

4.According to the respondents 2 to 4, on the date of accident i.e., on

¶43

05.07.2012 at 4.40 P.M., while the deceased Saravanan was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-20-BA-4509 from Uthukottai to Thiruvallur, Opposite to Meera Theatre, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-20-BD-6262 belonging to the appellant, who was coming in the same direction, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motorcycle and caused the accident. In the accident, the said Saravanan died on the way to hospital. Therefore, the respondents 2 to 4 along with parents of the deceased have filed the above claim petition claiming compensation against the appellant, owner of the lorry and 1^st respondent/Insurance Company, insurer of the said lorry.

¶44

5.The appellant, owner of the lorry remained exparte before the Tribunal.

¶45

6.The 1^st respondent/Insurance Company insurer of the lorry filed counter statement denying the averments made by the respondents 2 to 4 and stated that since the accident has occurred due to collision of two vehicles,

¶46

4/10

¶47

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

¶48

C.M.A.No.4526 of 2019

¶49

contributory negligence has to be fixed on the part of the deceased Saravanan. The driver of the lorry belonging to the appellant does not possess valid driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, the 1^st respondent/Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents 2 to 4. The 1^st respondent/Insurance Company has also denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. In any event, the compensation claimed by the respondents 2 to 4 is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶50

7.Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent, wife of the deceased Saravanan examined herself as P.W.1, one Ashogan, eye-witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and 9 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9. The 1^st respondent/Insurance Company examined the Assistant Manager (legal) of the Insurance Company as R.W.1 and marked the copies of driving license of the driver of the lorry and Insurance policy of the lorry as Exs.R1 and R2.

¶51

8.The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by

¶52

5/10

¶53

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

¶54

C.M.A.No.4526 of 2019

¶55

the driver of lorry belonging to the appellant and directed the 1^st

¶56

respondent/Insurance Company being the insurer of the said lorry to pay a sum of Rs.22,26,569/- as compensation to the respondents 2 to 4, at the first instance and recover the same from the appellant/owner of the lorry, as the driver of the lorry did not possess driving license at the time of accident.

¶57

9.Challenging the portion of award ordering pay and recovery, the appellant/owner of the lorry has come out with the present appeal.

¶58

10.It is the case of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that driver of the lorry had valid driving license till 03.05.2022 and the same is recorded in the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report. Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report produced by the respondents 2 to 4 was marked as Ex.P8. In column No.7 of Ex.P8, it is recorded as follows:

¶59

“HGV – 22.7.2012, D.L.No. 1811/KOR/2002, Expiry Date

¶60

: 03.05.2022, Badge: Office: ALA/Ambikapur”

¶61

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st

¶62

respondent/Insurance Company contended that driver of the lorry did not

¶63

possess driving license at the time of accident and hence, the 1^st respondent is 6/10

¶64

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

¶65

C.M.A.No.4526 of 2019

¶66

not liable to pay compensation to the respondents 2 to 4. In support of their contention, they relied on Ex.R1/driving license of the driver of the lorry issued by the Transport Department, Government of Chhattisgarh. The Tribunal considering the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/Insurance Company and Ex.R1, held that the driver of the lorry did not possess driving license at the time of accident and ordered pay and recovery directing the 1^st respondent to pay compensation to the respondents 2 to 4 at the first instance and recover the same from the appellant.

¶67

10(i). From Ex.P8/Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, it is seen that Driving License No.1811/KOR/2002 of the driver of the lorry, expiry date, badge endorsement and Office of issuing authority have been mentioned. The Tribunal has not considered Ex.P8, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the driver of the lorry possessed valid driving license till 03.05.2022 and on the date of accident, the driver of the lorry possessed valid driving license to drive the heavy goods vehicle. In view of the above materials, the portion of the award of the Tribunal ordering pay and recovery directing the 1^st

¶68

7/10

¶69

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

¶70

C.M.A.No.4526 of 2019

¶71

respondent/Insurance Company to pay compensation to the respondents 2 to

¶72

4 at the first instance and recover the same from the appellant alone is liable

¶73

to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The appellant as well as the 1^st respondent are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the respondents 2 to 4.

¶74

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by setting

¶75

aside the portion of the award directing the appellant to pay compensation to the respondents 2 to 4 at the first instance and recover the same from the 1^st respondent/Insurance Company. The compensation of Rs.22,26,569/awarded by the Tribunal along with interest and cost is confirmed. The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the 1^st respondent deposited the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal along with interest and costs. Considering the above submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent, the 2^nd respondent is permitted to withdraw her respective share of the award amount, determined by the Tribunal, as per the apportionment fixed by the Tribunal along with proportionate interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn.

¶76

8/10

¶77

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

¶78

C.M.A.No.4526 of 2019

¶79

The shares of the minor respondents 3 and 4 are directed to be deposited in any one of the Nationalized Banks, till the minors attain majority. The 2nd respondent, mother of the minor respondents 3 and 4, is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest, once in three months for the welfare of the minor respondents 3 and 4. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is

¶80

closed. No costs.

¶81

(V.M.V., J) (S.S., J) 28.06.2022

¶82

Index : Yes / No kj

¶83

9/10

¶84

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

¶85

C.M.A.No.4526 of 2019

¶86

V.M.VELUMANI,J. and S.SOUNTHAR,J.

¶87

¶88

¶89

1.The IV Additional District Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Thiruvallur at Ponneri.

¶90

2.The Section Officer VR Section High Court Madras.

¶91

C.M.A.No.4526 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.25677 of 2019

¶92

28.06.2022

¶93

10/10

¶94

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

M/S.Andhra Cement Carrier v. the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Andhra Cement Carrier v. the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Lomard General Insurance Vs Palani Devi

The Divisional Manager Vs Gangadevi

D.Bhaskar Vs G.Suganya

P.Kavinraj Vs B.Sumithra

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs P.Saraswathi

R.Balachandran Vs G.Reena