Injury claim arising from a 2007 road accident where the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,00,000 against the vehicle owner and exonerated the insurer due to the driver lacking a valid licence. The High Court held that as the claimant was a third party under a subsisting policy, the insurer must pay with pay-and-recovery rights.
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.(MD)No.1047 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 23.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
C.M.A.(MD)No.1047 of 2013
Malaiappan .. Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 08.04.2011 passed MCOP No.136 of 2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Sankarankovil.
For Appellant : Mr.Ramesh @ Ramiah For R1 : No appearance For R2 : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed as against the order passed Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Sankarankovil in M.C.O.P.No. 136 of 2007 dated 25.07.2012,
1/8
C.M.A.(MD)No.1047 of 2013
wherein the appellant herein has filed claim petition before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum by directing the first respondent/ owner of the vehicle by exonerating the insurance company.
3 . According to the petitioner he sustained injuries in the motor accident on 11.03.2007 @ 4.30 pm., when he was travelling as pillion rider in a two wheeler bearing Reg. No. TN 76 Y 1767. At that time the vehicle bearing Reg.No. PY 01 V 9886 was ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's motor cycle, due to which he sustained injuries. The vehicle belong to the first respondent and the same was insured with the second respondent. Due to the accident he sustained permanent disability, thereby he claimed a sum of Rs.10 lakhs towards compensation.
C.M.A.(MD)No.1047 of 2013
respondent driver at the same time the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle in which the petitioner travelled. The respondent denied the age, income and occupation of the petitioner and also the injuries sustained by him. The first respondent is not a real owner and the driver of the first respondent has no valid license on the date of accident , therefore the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
6.After evaluating the oral and documentary evidences adduced on either side, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards compensation by directing the first respondent, owner of the vehicle by exonerating the insurance company, since there is a violation of condition of policy. As against the said order of tribunal, the present appeal has been preferred by the petitioner on various ground including the liability fixed as against the first respondent/owner of the vehicle.
C.M.A.(MD)No.1047 of 2013
C.M.A.(MD)No.1047 of 2013
first respondent had no license on the date of accident, hence the second respondent/insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The Tribunal also after analyzing the evidence correctly fixed the liability as against the owner of vehicle hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
i) Whether the appeal is liable to be allowed or not?
C.M.A.(MD)No.1047 of 2013
11.03.2007. Therefore from the evidence on the side of the respondent it is clear that the driver of the first respondent had no license on the date of accident, thereby the first respondent has violated the condition of policy. Though there is violation of condition of policy as far as petitioner is concerned he is third party to the insurance and on the date of accident the insurance policy was in force, thereby the insurance company has to pay the award amount to the petitioner and the same can recovered from the first respondent under the principle of pay and recovery. The Tribunal has correctly fixed the negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent, however failed to consider that insurance company can pay and recover, therefore the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified. In this case there is no dispute in respect of quantum of amount. The appellant/petitioner also not disputed the quantum of amount
C.M.A.(MD)No.1047 of 2013
recovery. Time for payment is two months from the date of order of this Court. No cost.
23.02.2024
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No aav
To:
C.M.A.(MD)No.1047 of 2013
P. DHANABAL,J.
aav
C.M.A.(MD)No.1047 of 2013
23.02.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the insurer is liable to pay compensation to a third-party claimant despite breach of policy condition (driver without licence), with right of pay and recovery from the owner?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Malaiappan
Chandiran
The Branch Manager IFFCO Tokya General Insurance Thirunagar, Chennai-17
P. Dhanabal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
