Insurance appeals against a common Tribunal award in thirteen motor accident claims arising from a 1996 lorry-tanker collision. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that only the tanker lorry was negligent and confirmed the quantum, dismissing all appeals with no order as to costs.
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.Nos.2270 to 2282 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.M.A.Nos.2270 to 2282 of 2008
C.M.A.No.2270 of 2008:
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai.
... Appellant
Vs.
... Respondents
(Respondents 3 & 5 were set exparte in the lower Court. Hence, notice to them are dispensed with)
_________ Page 1 of 8
C.M.A.Nos.2270 to 2282 of 2008
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 28.08.2007 passed in M.C.O.P.No.278 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Sub Court, Athur.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Sivakumar in all cases For Respondents : Ms.V.Pavithra for Mrs.V.Srimathi for R1&R2 in C.M.A.Nos.2270 to 2274 of 2008 and for R1 in C.M.A.Nos.2275 to 2282 of 2008
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
These appeals are filed against the common order passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.278, 279, 281, 282 & 283 of 1997 and 200, 201, 15, 84 of 1998, 10, 11, 12 and 39 of 1999. Since all the claim petitions were filed claiming compensation for the same accident, these appeals are taken up for hearing and disposed of through this common judgment.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal.
Page 2 of 8
C.M.A.Nos.2270 to 2282 of 2008
3. The accident occurred on 15.09.1996 wherein some had expired and some sustained grievous injuries. A lorry bearing Registration No.TAS5212 in which the deceased and the injured were traveling collided against tanker lorry bearing Registration No.TSH-959 near Athur Pudupet, as a result of the said accident, some of the passengers traveling in the lorry died and some were injured. F IR No.1712 of 1996 was filed. The second respondent / Insurance Company denied the age, occupation and income of the claimants on the ground that no documents have been filed to substantiate the same. Moreover, the Insurance Company also challenged the MCOPs on the ground of negligence stating that there was a policy violation as passengers were gratuitous passengers. The fourth respondent / Insurance Company denied the liability on the ground that both the lorry driver and the tanker lorry driver did not have the driving licence and therefore, the owners of the vehicles are to be made liable.
and the evidences came to the conclusion that the driver of the tanker lorry
_________ Page 3 of 8
C.M.A.Nos.2270 to 2282 of 2008
was responsible for the accident and passed a common award granting compensation to each of the claimants. Challenging the said common award, the fourth respondent / Insurance Company with which the tanker lorry was insured has filed the present appeals.
_________ Page 4 of 8
C.M.A.Nos.2270 to 2282 of 2008
considered by the Tribunal. The appellant / Insurance is also aggrieved of the award being passed fixing the sole liability on the Insurance Company without ordering pay and recovery. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks for setting aside the common award passed in all these claim petitions.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, the Tribunal taking into consideration all the relevant documents has rightly fixed the compensation, which does not require any interference.
7 . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
tanker lorry as Ex.P1. Though the learned counsel appeared before the Tribunal for the fourth respondent / Insurance company / appellant herein
_________ Page 5 of 8
C.M.A.Nos.2270 to 2282 of 2008
has taken a stand that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry and that the driver of the lorry was not possessing valid driving licence. The eye witness has categorically stated that the tanker lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner and therefore, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the tanker lorry was responsible for the accident. As many as 17 witnesses were examined on the side of the claimants and 34 documents were filed whereas one witness was examined on behalf of the respondents and only two documents namely insurance policy and driving licence marked before the Tribunal.
_________ Page 6 of 8
C.M.A.Nos.2270 to 2282 of 2008
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
06.12.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No
vji
To
2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Sub Court, Athur.
_________ Page 7 of 8
C.M.A.Nos.2270 to 2282 of 2008
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
vji
C.M.A.Nos.2270 to 2282 of 2008
06.12.2024
_________ Page 8 of 8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether liability for the accident could be fixed solely on the tanker lorry driver rather than both drivers.
Whether carriage of passengers in a goods vehicle and lack of valid driving licence absolved the insurer.
Whether compensation awarded by the Tribunal required interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai
Ramasamy
Pachaiyammal
Janarthanan
The National Insurance Company Ltd., Salem
Babu Rao
M.Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
