Partly allowed

Kamatchi v. R.Selvi

Madras HC14 Nov 2024CMA/3703/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed appeals filed by claimants and allowed appeals filed by the insurer in motor accident claims arising from a 2001 accident. The court held the insurance company not liable due to a lack of valid coverage at the time of the accident and ruled that the bank holding a mortgage was not the statutory 'owner' under Section 2(30) of the MV Act.

What did the court decide?

Compensation liability fixed on the owner; insurer permitted to withdraw deposited amount; liberty granted to claimants against owner.

Kamatchi Vs R.Selvi — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CMA.Nos.3703 & 3704 of 2010 and 3276 & 3277 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.11.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CMA.Nos.3703 & 3704 of 2010 and 3276 & 3277 of 2011 and

¶7

MP.No.1 of 2011 (2 Nos.)

¶8

CMA.No.3703 of 2010:

¶9

Kamatchi

¶10

Viekneshwaran (Minor)

¶11

Thipeka (Minor)

¶12

Minors rep. by their Mother and Next friend Kamatchi

¶13

Akilandam …Appellants

¶14

Vs.

¶15

R.Selvi

¶16

National Insurance Co.Ltd., Lawrence Road, Cuddalore.

¶17

The Managing Director, The Special Officer, Primary Co-op Agri. Rural Development Bank (L.D. Bank) Cuddalore. …Respondents

¶18

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as against the judgement and decree dated 21.06.2010 made in MACT.O.P.No.72 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Vilupuram District, Villupuram.

¶19

1/14

¶20

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

¶21

CMA.Nos.3703 & 3704 of 2010 and 3276 & 3277 of 2011

¶22

CMA.No.3704 of 2010:

A.Subramanian

…Appellant

Vs.

R.Selvi

¶27

National Insurance Co.Ltd., Lawrence Road, Cuddalore.

¶28

The Managing Director, The Special Officer, Primary Co-op Agri. Rural Development Bank (L.D. Bank) Cuddalore. …Respondents

¶29

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as against the judgement and decree dated 21.06.2010 made in MACT.O.P.No.211 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judicial Magistrate Court), Vilupuram District, Villupuram.

¶30

CMA.No.3276 of 2011:

¶31

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Lorens Road, Cuddalore. …Appellant

¶32

Vs.

¶33

Kamatchi

¶34

Minor Viekneshwaran

¶35

Minor Thipeka Minors rep. by their Mother and Next friend 1^st respondent

¶36

Akilandam

¶37

2/14

¶38

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

¶39

CMA.Nos.3703 & 3704 of 2010 and 3276 & 3277 of 2011

¶40

R.Selvi

¶41

The Managing Director,

¶42

The Special Officer, Primary Co-operative Agricultural Rural Development Bank (L.T.Bank), Cuddalore. …Respondents

¶43

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as against the judgement and decree in MCOP.No.72 of 2004 dated 21.06.2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Vilupuram.

¶44

CMA.No.3277 of 2011:

¶45

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Lorens Road, Cuddalore.

¶46

…Appellant

¶47

Vs.

¶48

Subramanian

¶49

R.Selvi

¶50

The Managing Director, The Special Officer, Primary Co-operative Agricultural Rural Development Bank(L.T.Bank), Cuddalore. …Respondents

¶51

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgement and decree in MCOP.No.211 of

¶52

3/14

¶53

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

¶54

CMA.Nos.3703 & 3704 of 2010 and 3276 & 3277 of 2011

¶55

2004 dated 21.06.2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram District, Vilupuram.

¶56

CMA.No.3703 of 2010:

¶57

For Appellants : Mrs.A.Subadra For Respondents : R1-Exparte Mr.S.Arun Kumar, for R2 Mr.Tamilnidhi, for R3

¶58

C.M.A. No. 3704 of 2010

¶59

For Appellant : Mrs.A.Subadra For Respondents : R1-Exparte Mr.S.Arun Kumar, for R2 Mr.Tamilnidhi, for R3

¶60

C.M.A. No. 3276 of 2011

¶61

For Appellant : Mr.S.Arun Kumar For Respondents : Mrs.A.Subadra, for R1 to R3 R4-Died (Steps due) R5-Set Exparte in EB M/s.Tamilnidhi, for R6

¶62

CMA.No.3277 of 2011:

¶63

For Appellant : Mr.S.Arun Kumar For Respondents : Mrs.A.Subadra, for R1 Notice not ready, for R2

¶64

4/14

¶65

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

¶66

CMA.Nos.3703 & 3704 of 2010 and 3276 & 3277 of 2011

¶67

R3-Exparte

¶68

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶69

Since the issue involved in all these Civil miscellaneous appeals are arising out of the very same accident, they are disposed of by way of this common order.

¶70

Challenging the common award dated 21.06.2010 made in MCOP. Nos.72 & 211 of 2004 on the file of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram District, Vilupuram, the claimants as well as the insurer have come up with these Civil Miscellaneous appeals.

¶71

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in the same

¶72

array as they were arrayed in CMA.No.3703 of 2010.

¶73

The appellant(s) in CMA.Nos.3703 & 3704 of 2010 are claimants. It is

¶74

the case of the claimants that, on 14.10.2001 when the deceased Aramudhu and

¶75

5/14

¶76

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

¶77

CMA.Nos.3703 & 3704 of 2010 and 3276 & 3277 of 2011

¶78

the appellant in CMA.No.3704 of 2010 were travelling in the tractor bearing Regn.No.TN-31-C-3832 and trailor bearing Regn.No.TN-31-C-3834 owned by the 1^st respondent insured with the 2^nd respondent, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and swerved the vehicle towards left due to which the deceased and the other claimant/the appellant in CMA.No.3704 of 2010 were thrown out of the vehicle and sustained grievous injuries and the deceased Aramudhu succumbed to the same. Thereby, the respective claimants filed claim petitions in MCOP.Nos.72 & 211 of 2004 seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- respectively and both the cases were tried together. Before the tribunal, the claimants examined three witnesses viz., P.W.1–P.W.3 and marked Exhibits P.1-P.12 and on the side of the respondents therein, one witness viz., R.W.1 was examined and exhibits R.1-R3 were marked. After trial, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,30,000/and Rs.1,25,000/- respectively towards compensation and directed the 1^st respondent/onwer and the 2^nd respondent/insurer of the vehice to pay the compensation. Challenging the same, these appeals have been filed.

¶79

Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that, the accident is of the year 2001 and due to the above said accident, one person lost his life and another person sustained grievous injuries, due to which, he is unable to 6/14

¶80

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

¶81

CMA.Nos.3703 & 3704 of 2010 and 3276 & 3277 of 2011

¶82

carryout his day to day activities without the help of another person. However, the tribunal had awarded a meagre sum of Rs.3,30,000/- and Rs.1,25,000/respectively towards compensation, which is wholly unsustainable. Learned counsel further submitte that, immediately after the purchase of the vehicle, the same was hypothecated with the 3^rd respondent/bank towards the loan obtained and the bank assured that the policy will be renewed periodically, which it failed to do so and necessarily the liability has to be fastened as against the owner and the bank, since both their names are mentioned in the insurance policy. Hence, both the owner and the bank are liable to pay compensation. Learned Counsel further relied upon Section 2 (30) of the MV Act wherein “owner” has been defined to mean a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hirepurchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement . Accordingly, she prayed for appropriate orders.

¶83

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2^nd respondent/insurance companny submitted that, admittedly the accident took place on 14.10.2001 and at the time of accident there is no valid insurance 7/14

¶84

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

¶85

CMA.Nos.3703 & 3704 of 2010 and 3276 & 3277 of 2011

¶86

policy and it is evident from the policy marked as Exhibit P4 and R3 that the policy expired on 26/11/2000 and subsequently the trailer policy was renewed for the period from 7/11/2001 till 6/11/2002 and on the date of accident, there was no valid insurance policy either for the tractor or for the trailor. Hence, fastening the liability as against the 2^nd respondent/insurance company is not sustainable.

¶87

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3^rd respondent/Bank submitted that the 1^st respondent/owner purchased the vehicle and immediately after the purchase he hypothecated the same with the 3^rd respondent bank towards the loan obtained and it is the duty of the owner to renew the insurance policy periodically and the 3^rd respondent bank has no compulsion to renew the policy since the possession of the vehicle was always with the owner and only for the purpose of payment of the amount they are retaining the name of the bank by mentioning that the vehicle was hypothecated with the bank and mere mentioning of the bank will not be the ground to fasten the liability on the bank and the same was elaborately considered by the trial court and thereby passed the present impugned award, which cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of these appeals.

¶88

8/14

¶89

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

¶90

CMA.Nos.3703 & 3704 of 2010 and 3276 & 3277 of 2011

¶91

Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶92

Admittedly, the deceased and the other claimant/the appellant in

¶93

CMA.No.3704 of 2010 were travelling in the tractor trailer on 14/10/2001.

¶94

However, the issue as whether the travellers were authorised to travel in the vehicle was not raised before the trial court and, therefore, this Court is not venturing into the same.

¶95

The issue that falls for consideration of this Court is as to whether there was a valid insurance policy at the time of accidentt?

¶96

This court perused the Exhibit P4 as well as R3 and on perusal of the same reveals that the registration number of the vehicle is not mentioned in the policy and only the chasis number and the engine number is mentioned. It is evident that the earlier policy expired on 26/11/2000. Subsequently there is no material to show that the policy was renewed with regard to the tractor trailer and the vehicle met with an accident.

¶97

9/14

¶98

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

¶99

CMA.Nos.3703 & 3704 of 2010 and 3276 & 3277 of 2011

¶100

A perusal of exhibit R3 reveals that the policy was subsequently renewed for the period from 7/11/2001 and the same got expired on 6/11/2002. Between 26.11.2000 and 6.11.2001 there is no policy of insurance and the accident had taken place on 14.10.2001. In the absence of a valid insurance policy, fastening the liability as against insurance company is not sustainable.

¶101

The next issue arises for consideration is whether the trial court is right in discharging the 3^rd respondent bank. Admittedly, the 1^st respondent/ owner of the vehicle hypothecated the tractor and trailer with the 3^rd respondent bank, thereby in exhibit P4 and R3, both the owner and the bank name is mentioned under the clause of hypothecation. However, merely towards the loan advanced, the hypothecation is being carried out, could the bank be made liable for payment of compensation is the question that arises for consideration.

¶102

In this regard this Court deems it fit to rely upon the Section 2(30) of the MV Act which reads as under :-

¶103

"2. Definitions . – In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -

¶104

(30) “owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered and where such person is a minor, the

¶105

10/14

¶106

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

¶107

CMA.Nos.3703 & 3704 of 2010 and 3276 & 3277 of 2011

¶108

guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement ;

¶109

Corresponding Law. - Section 2 (30) corresponds to section 2 (19) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939."

¶110

A perusal of Section 2 (30) of the MV Act makes it clear that it is

¶111

only the person in whose name the vehicle stands and in whose possessession the vehicle is, even in respect of a vehicle purchased on a hire-purchase agreement is deemed to be the owner. This makes it clear that mere hypothecation of the vehicle on the bank would not fasten any liability on the bank, as the vehicle has been purchased by the 1^st respondent/owner under a hire purchase agreement with the bank and, therefore, the bank would in no way step into the shoes of the owner to partake the character of owner. Hence, no liability can be fastened on the bank, which holds a mere hypothecation on account of the hire purchase agreement between it and the owner. Hence, the trial court had rightly discharged the 3^rd respondent bank with which this court does not find any fault with.

¶112

11/14

¶113

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

¶114

CMA.Nos.3703 & 3704 of 2010 and 3276 & 3277 of 2011

¶115

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous appeals in CMA.Nos.3703 & 3704

¶116

of 2010 filed by the claimants stand dismissed and the appeals in CMA.Nos.3276 & 3277 of 2010 filed by the insurer stand allowed by setting aside the impugned common award dated 21.06.2010 made in MCOP.Nos.72 & 211 of

¶117

2004 insofar as fixing the liability on the 2^nd respondent/insurer and instead the liability is fixed on the 1^st respondent/owner alone and the respective claimants st are granted liberty to proceed against the 1 respondent/owner to recover the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the manner known to law. T he 2^nd respondent/insurance company is permitted to withdraw the compensation amount, if any, deposited by them. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶118

14.11.2024

¶119

skt

¶120

Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No

¶121

12/14

¶122

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

¶123

CMA.Nos.3703 & 3704 of 2010 and 3276 & 3277 of 2011

¶124

To:

¶125

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Vilupuram District, Villupuram.

¶126

The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court.

¶127

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶128

skt

¶129

CMA.Nos.3703 & 3704 of 2010 and 3276 & 3277 of 2011

¶130

and MP.No.1 of 2011 (2 Nos.)

¶131

13/14

¶132

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

¶133

CMA.Nos.3703 & 3704 of 2010 and 3276 & 3277 of 2011

¶134

14.11.2024

¶135

14/14

¶136

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

Kamatchi v. R.Selvi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamatchi v. R.Selvi

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

D.Arumugam Vs S.Nallathambi

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Elumalai

The Managing Director Vs a.Sumathi

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamatchi W/O Aravamudhu

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Saradha

Susila Vs Baskaran