The High Court allowed the appeal partly, holding that since the driver lacked a valid license, the insurer must pay compensation to the claimants but is permitted to recover the amount from the vehicle owner.
Appellant directed to pay Rs.4,73,000 with interest and costs; permitted to recover same from the owner of the vehicle.
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.
C.M.A.(MD)No.548 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 22.08.2022
Delivered On : 01.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI
C.M.A.(MD)No.548 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013
Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. through its Divisional Manager, No.82, Preetham Plaza, I-Floor, Chandrakanthi Nagar, Ponmeni, Bye pass road, Madurai – 10. .. Appellant /2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.Manickam 2.M.Rajalakshmi 3.M.Selvaraj 4.M.Kaliraj 5.M.Suresh 6.M.Ragupathi ... Respondents 1 to 6/ Petitioners 7.P.Murugan ... 7th Respondent / 1st Respondent
C.M.A.(MD)No.548 of 2013
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order, dated 31.10.2011, made in M.C.O.P.No.77 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court-III)- Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan For Respondents : Mr.J.Bharathan for R1 to R6 : No appearance for R7
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award, dated 31.10.2011, made in M.C.O.P.No.77 of 2009, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court-III)- Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the respondents 1 to 6 herein are the claimants and the seventh respondent herein is the first respondent in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.
On 27.09.2007, at about 9.45 pm, when the deceased – Saravanan was standing near a shop on the left side of the T.Kallupatti main road, a
C.M.A.(MD)No.548 of 2013
minidoor auto, bearing Registration No.TN-58-Q-1374 came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. He was given first aid in T.Kallupatti Seva Hospital, then, he was referred to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and he succumbed to injuries on 12.10.2007. He was working as a sales man in a Textile shop and was earning Rs.3,500/- per month. The claimants are his dependents and they claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.
The second respondent denied the age, dependents and income of the deceased. The driver of the first respondent did not possess valid driving licence. The driver was not rash or negligent. The accident took place only due to the negligent on the part of the deceased. The compensation claimed is excessive.
C.M.A.(MD)No.548 of 2013
The Tribunal failed to consider the absence of driving licence for the driver of the vehicle. The Insurance Company has issued a legal notice to the owner of the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle and also summoned the official from the Regional Transport Office and proved the absence of the driving licence. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the oral evidence of P.W.2 regarding the absence of driving licence. The deceased was a Bachelor and only parents were the dependents and the brothers cannot be the dependents. The average age of the parents has to be taken into consideration for applying multiplier. The Tribunal is wrong in selecting the multiplier in accordance with the age of the deceased. The appellant is not at all liable to pay compensation.
C.M.A.(MD)No.548 of 2013
the copy of the notice sent to the owner of the vehicle. Ex.R4 was the 'unserved' return cover sent to the driver. Ex.R5 was the acknowledgement card signed by the owner of the vehicle. The Insurance Company examined R.W2, a junior assistant from the Regional Transport Office. Ex.R6 was the proceeding of the Regional Transport Office. As per Ex.R6, no driving licence was available for the driver of the vehicle. Only after taking steps for production of the original, the appellant has marked Ex.R6 as secondary evidence and prayed an order to pay and recover to be passed.
C.M.A.(MD)No.548 of 2013
C.M.A.(MD)No.548 of 2013
are violated by the owner of the vehicle. Hence, the Insurance company can pay the compensation to the claimants and the appellant is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle
01.09.2022
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Ls
C.M.A.(MD)No.548 of 2013
R. THARANI, J.
Ls
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID – 19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
To
(Fast Track Court-III)- Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Pre-delivery Judgment made in C.M.A.(MD)No.548 of 2013
01.09.2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants despite the driver's absence of a valid driving licence.
Whether the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the compensation paid from the owner of the motor vehicle.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Thanikodi v. ParameswariReferred¶34
C.M.A.(MD)No.211 of 2018 (Thanikodi V. Parameswari)
Shamanna v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company LimitedReferred¶37
2018-9-SCC-650 (Shamanna V.Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Ltd.
1. Manickam
2. M. Rajalakshmi
3. M. Selvaraj
4. M. Kaliraj
5. M. Suresh
R. Tharani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
