Allowed

The Chief Manager v. Rasathi - Died

Madras HC17 Dec 2024CMA/772/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance company appealed a Tribunal award of compensation to an injured claimant. The court found the policy was a Contractor's Plant and Machinery Insurance Policy, not a motor vehicle policy, so the claim petition was not maintainable. Appeal allowed; award set aside with liberty to claimants before the civil court.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; Tribunal award set aside; insurer allowed to withdraw deposited amount; claimants granted liberty to seek remedy before civil court; limitation period excluded.

The Chief Manager Vs Rasathi - Died — Insurance | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.772 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.772 of 2020 and CMP.No.4815 of 2020

¶7

The chief Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 3^rd party claims hub, No.216, Old No.115, Prakasam Salai, Broadway, Chennai-108. ... Appellant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.Rasathi (died) 2. N.Muthukumaran

¶10

Natarajan

¶11

Meena

¶12

Vijaya

¶13

Pazhaniammal

¶14

R1 died. RR3 to 6 are the legal heirs of R1 impleaded vide court order dated 10.12.2024 made in CMP. Nos.28585 & 28586 of 2024 in CMA.No.772/2020 by this Court. ... Respondents

¶15

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.2677 of 2013 dated 18.10.2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Judge, Cuddalore.

¶16

1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.772 of 2020

¶18

For Appellant : Mr.J.Chandran

¶19

For Respondents : Mrs.Ramya V.Rao R3 to 6

¶20

R2 – No appearance

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The present appeal has been filed by the insurance company

¶23

against the judgement and decree in M.C.O.P.No.2677 of 2013 dated 18.10.2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Judge, Cuddalore on ground of liability.

¶24

The case of the claimant is that on 23.08.2013 at about

¶25

15.00 hours, when one Rasathi was in her house at V.Pillaipalayam and

¶26

was locking the door from inside, the second respondent's JCB Hydraulic excavator bearing Reg. No.TN 31 AD 7930 was operated in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, and hit the wall of the first respondent's house, due to which, the wall fell on her. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained fractures and grievous injuries. It is under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal seeking for payment of compensation for the injuries.

¶27

The Tribunal on considering the facts and circumstances of

¶28

2/6

¶29

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

¶30

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.772 of 2020

¶31

the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the JCB. The Tribunal thereafter proceeded to fix the total compensation at Rs.3,51,850/- under various heads various heads with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Questioning the liability fixed by the Tribunal, the insurance company has filed this appeal.

¶32

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claim petition filed by the claimant is not maintainable as the insurance policy is a Maraine Policy/Plant and machinery policy. The Tribunal has erroneously awarded compensation to the claimant. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants for the accident had taken place since no extra premium was charged to cover the third party liability. If the claimant have any grievance, they have to file a suit before the appropriate forum.

¶33

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

¶34

respondents/claimants fairly submitted that the policy is not a Motor 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.772 of 2020

¶36

Vehicle Policy and it is a Plant and Machinery policy. Hence, this Court may grant liberty to the petitioner to work out their remedy before the competent civil court.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for appellant/claimant and the

¶38

learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

¶39

Admittedly, only when an insurance policy is issued under

¶40

Motor Vehicle Act, the policy can be construed as a motor vehicle's policy and thereby, any claims could be made for compensation against the insurer concerned. However, in the present case, it is found that the policy is a special policy, which clearly stipulates that it is only a Contractor's Plant and Machinery Insurance Policy, which has got no relevance to the motor vehicle Act or compensation payable thereunder. Hence, the claim petition filed by the injured claimant is not maintainable and therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

¶41

8 . With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

¶42

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.772 of 2020

¶44

is allowed in the above terms. The award passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The Insurance company is directed to withdraw the amount already deposited. However, liberty is granted to the respondents/claimants to work out their remedy in the manner known to law. No costs. The period pending before the lower court as well as this Court is excluded for the purpose of limitation.

¶45

17.12.2024

¶46

Speaking Judgment/Non-speaking Judgment Index :Yes/No Neutral citation: Yes/No rli

¶47

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.772 of 2020

¶49

M.DHANDAPANI.,J rli

¶50

To, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional Sub Judge, Cuddalore.

¶51

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.772 of 2020

¶52

17.12.2024

¶53

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Chief Manager v. Rasathi - Died

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Manager v. Rasathi - Died

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

P. Madhankumar Vs B. Ithiyath Sheriff

The Managing Director Vs Sulthan

National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs P.Palanisamy

Kasthuri Vs K.Rajendran(Died)

R.Sakthivel Vs Paul Udaya Suriyan

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Loganathan