Insurer challenged a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award under Section 163-A, arguing the rider who borrowed the vehicle from the owner was not a third party and his dependants could not claim compensation. Relying on the Supreme Court's Ramkhiladi decision, the High Court set aside the award against the insurer and permitted it to withdraw its deposit.
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. No.1957 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.06.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A. No.1957 of 2021
and
C.M.P. No.10525 of 2021
The Manager, M/s.IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai. .... Appellant vs.
and next friend, mother Chitra, 1st respondent.
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the decree and judgment dated 23.04.2019 passed in M.C.O.P. No.71 of 2015, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (In the Sub Court) at Perundurai.
For Appellant : Mr.J. Michael Visuvasam For Respondents : R1, R2 & R6 – No appearance R3 – Minor R4 & R5 - Died
1/5
C.M.A. No.1957 of 2021
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging its liability to pay the compensation on the ground that since the rider of the vehicle has stepped into the shoes of the owner(insured), the claimants are not entitled for any compensation.
2/5
C.M.A. No.1957 of 2021
vehicle from the insured, he has stepped into the shoes of the insured and therefore, the claim made by the claimants is not a 3rd party claim even though the claim has been made under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle's Act. Even for a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, it should be a 3rd party claim as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Ramkhiladi's case referred to supra. Admittedly, when the rider of the motor cycle is not a 3rd party, his dependants, who are the claimants are not entitled to seek compensation from the appellant Insurance Company, who has insured the vehicle owned by the 6th respondent from whom the rider of the motor cycle has borrowed the vehicle. However despite the well settled law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi's case, as referred to supra, the Tribunal has erroneously passed the impugned award making the appellant Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation. In view of the well settled law, necessarily, the impugned award has to be set aside by this Court insofar as the appellant Insurance Company is concerned. Accordingly, the impugned award, dated 23.04.2019 passed against the appellant Insurance Company is hereby set aside and this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
3/5
C.M.A. No.1957 of 2021
whatever amount that was earlier deposited by them before the Tribunal by filing an appropriate application.
04.06.2024
Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order vsi2
4/5
C.M.A. No.1957 of 2021
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2
To
2.The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Madras, Chennai – 104.
C.M.A. No.1957 of 2021
04.06.2024
5/5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a rider who borrowed the insured motorcycle from the owner steps into the owner's shoes, barring his dependants' claim under Section 163-A against the insurer?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramkhiladi & Anr. vs. The United India Insurance Company & Anr.Relied on¶4
Civil Appeal No.9393 of 2019
2 provisions across 1 enactments
The Manager, M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai
Chitra
Sangeeth Kumar
Minor Sujeeth Kumar (rep. by mother Chitra)
Muthusamy
Chinnammal
Abdul Quddhose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
