Dismissed

The Branch Oriental Insurance v. Muthu

Madras HC23 Jul 2024CMA(MD)/1021/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by an insurance company challenging an award of compensation passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court rejected the insurer's contention regarding expired driving license and absence of evidence for overloading, holding the insurer liable to pay and allowed recovery from the vehicle owner.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed; appellant/Insurance Company entitled to recover amount from owner of the Auto.

The Branch Oriental Insurance Vs Muthu — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A.(MD).Nos. 1021 to 1023 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.07.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

C.M.A(MD)Nos.1021 to 1023 of 2017 and C.M.P(MD) Nos.10576 to 10578 of 2017

¶7

C.M.A(MD) No.1021 of 2017:

¶8

The Branch Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 24E, 12/A,Sivasakthi Shopping Complex, S.N.High Road, Tirunelveli - 627 001.

¶9

Tirunelveli - 627 001. ... Appellant/2^nd Respondent -vs1. Muthu ... 1^st Respondent/Petitioner 2. Bharat Kumar ... 2^nd Respondent/1^st Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.33 of 2012, dated 11.02.2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Valliyoor.

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran for Mr.C.Ramachandran

¶12

For Respondents : No appearance

¶13

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

¶14

1/7

¶15

C.M.A.(MD).Nos. 1021 to 1023 of 2017

¶16

C.M.A(MD) No.1022 of 2017:

¶17

The Branch Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 24E, 12/A,Sivasakthi Shopping Complex, S.N.High Road, Tirunelveli - 627 001. ... Appellant/2^nd Respondent -vs1. Paramasivam ... 1^st Respondent/Petitioner 2. Bharat Kumar ... 2^nd Respondent/1^st Respondent

¶18

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.34 of 2012, dated 11.02.2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Valliyoor.

¶19

For Appellant : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran for Mr.C.Ramachandran For Respondents : No appearance

¶20

C.M.A(MD) No.1023 of 2017:

¶21

The Branch Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 24E, 12/A,Sivasakthi Shopping Complex, S.N.High Road, Tirunelveli - 627 001. ... Appellant/2^nd Respondent -vs1. Ulagammal ... 1^st Respondent/Petitioner 2. Bharat Kumar ... 2^nd Respondent/1^st Respondent

¶22

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

¶23

2/7

¶24

PRAYER:

¶25

C.M.A.(MD).Nos. 1021 to 1023 of 2017

¶26

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No. 105 of 2012, dated 11.02.2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Valliyoor.

¶27

For Appellant : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran for Mr.C.Ramachandran For Respondents : No appearance

¶28

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

¶29

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company, challenging the common award passed in M.C.O.P.Nos.33, 34 and 105 of 2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Valliyoor.

¶30

2. According to the claimants, they have travelled in a Auto owned by

¶31

the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. The Auto was driven in a rash and negligent manner and had got capsized and all of them were injured in the accident. The claimants have sought for compensation.

¶32

3. The Insurance Company has filed a counter taking various defences including overloading of the Auto. The Insurance Company has further contended that the driving license of the driver had expired on 23.03.2006 but

¶33

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

¶34

3/7

¶35

C.M.A.(MD).Nos. 1021 to 1023 of 2017

¶36

the accident has happened on 14.06.2011. Therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation.

¶37

4. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has arrived at a finding that the accident has taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Auto. The Tribunal further found that there was no driving licence for the driver of the Auto on the date of accident. In view of the violation of the policy condition, the Tribunal has passed an award directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the award and thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the Auto. Challenging the same, the present appeals have been filed.

¶38

5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, when there is overloading and driver of the Auto was not having a valid driving license, the Tribunal ought not have been passed an award of pay and recovery. Hence, he prayed for allowing these appeals.

¶39

6. Even though the claimants have been served, there is no representation on the side of the respondents either in person or through their counsel.

¶40

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

¶41

4/7

¶42

C.M.A.(MD).Nos. 1021 to 1023 of 2017

¶43

7. Though the Insurance Company has contended that the Auto was

¶44

overloaded at the time of accident, no records have been placed before the Court. Even assuming that five persons have travelled in the Auto, only three of them have filed claim petitions. In such circumstances, the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy all the three awards. As far as the issue of driving license is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly arrived at a finding that the driving licence of the Auto driver had expired five years prior to the date of accident and passed an orders of pay and recovery. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any merits in these appeals.

¶45

8. Accordingly, all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals stand dismissed. The appellant/Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the amount from the owner of the Auto, by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2004 (13) (SCC) 224 (Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Shri Nanjappan & Others). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.

¶46

23.07.2024

¶47

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi

¶48

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

¶49

5/7

¶50

C.M.A.(MD).Nos. 1021 to 1023 of 2017

¶51

¶52